1973-07-04

PRESENCE IN SPEAKERS GALLERY OF FRENCH DELEGATES TO MEETING OF FRANCE-CANADA INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-9, an Act to enable Canada to comply with a Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.']
Mr. Speaker:: This year, the France-Canada Interparliamentary Association is holding its meetings in Ottawa. During the next few days, French and Canadian parliamentarians, members of the French National Assembly and the Canadian House of Commons, will be discussing topics of mutual interest.
It gives me great pleasure to point out to the House the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the members of the French delegation. This delegation, led by the Questor, Mr. Lucien Neuwirth, represents the complete range of political groupings in the National Assembly. On behalf of hon. members, I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished visitors. On behalf of my colleagues, I also wish them a pleasant stay in Canada, particularly in Ottawa, Montreal, Perce and Gaspe, where they will spend a few hours on the weekend. Those who take an interest in the work of this association are confident that the talks at this meeting will help strengthen the ties of friendship which already link France and Canada so closely.

[ English]



Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-9, an Act to enable Canada to comply with a Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in both official languages-(Mr. Bechard).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41, subparagraph (2), I wish to table the Treasury Board guidelines on language requirements of positions and public service commission bulletins No. 73-12 relating to the staffing of bilingual positions, in both official languages.


STORAGE OF NATURAL GAS AND PETROLEUM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the uncertainty which prevails in Canada over the oil situation, we feel that we must urgently request the adjournment of the House, and considering that building a pipeline between the Arctic Islands and Montreal would be more advantageous than building a liquefaction plant in the Arctic and transporting gas in tankers all the way to the Magdelen Islands, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), under Standing Order 43:
That this House do now adjourn to carry out the necessary inquiry into the storing of natural gas and oil within the scope of a storing policy similar to that enforced by the United States so as to better serve eastern Canada and accumulate stocks to prevent any shortage which might result from an international crisis with the producing countries.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Compton moved the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 43. The hon. member knows, I am sure, that such a motion should have been moved under Standing Order 26, and that he should have given the written statement required by the said order. The Chair not having received this statement, I
5272

July 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
suggest to the hon. member and the House that the motion is out of order.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For what insurance company or companies does Air Canada act as agent?
2.	What kinds of insurance are available?
3.	By what procedure is an agreement reached between Air Canada and an insurance company to provide a particular kind of coverage?
4.	Does the government agree that any insurance company that Air Canada does, or will in future, act as an agent should be Canadian?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Air Canada acts as agent for Voyageur Travel Insurance Ltd. With respect to insurance on air cargo, the corporation
acts for the Insurance Company of North America.
2.	World-Wide Travel Accident, All-Risk Baggage, Air Flight, and Trip Cancellation. With respect to air cargo, there is available shippers' all risk against physical damage and carrier's legal liability to a declared value by the shipper.
3.	The procedure follows that used by the air transportation industry generally. Air Canada negotiates with an insurance broker to become a handling agent. When terms are agreed a letter of agreement is concluded.
4.	The Ministry of Transport advises as follows: Air Canada, as a Crown corporation, has the responsibility to negotiate with the insurance companies, and would no doubt take into consideration the nationality of the companies concerned as well as the rate structure.


Mr. Orlikow: What was the recidivist rate of males admitted to each Canadian penitentiary in the year 1971?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: The latest published statistics available on recidivism rates, from Statistics Canada, are for the year 1970. The following table reflects the recidivist rate of male persons admitted to federal receiving institutions during 1970:
Recidivism Rates, Males, 1970
Receiving Institutions
First Commitment
Other than First Commitment
Percentage
Total	or total
Admissions	Number admissions
Percentage of total
Number admissions
Her Majesty's Penitentiary St. John's, Newfoundland	. .. 42	14	33.3	28	66.7Dorchester Penitentiary	... 443	109	24.6	334	75.4St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary	. .. 1,260	374	29.7	886	70.3Kingston Penitentiary	. . 1,128	176	15.5	952	84.5Stony Mountain Institution	... 418	119	28.5	299	71.5Saskatchewan Penitentiary	. . . 439	64	14.6	375	85.4Drumheller Institution	... 137	34	24.8	103	75.2British Columbia Penitentiary	. . 524	89	16.9	435	83.1
Total.
4,391
22.3
3,412
77.7
Notes: 1. The number shown under "First Commitment" column represent individuals entering a penal institution for their first time. Those listed under "Other than First Commitment" represent inmates who have previously served one or more periods of incarceration in a reformatory, gaol or federal penitentiary, or have served sentence in two or more of the three types of penal institutions.
2.	Of the 4,391 inmates admitted to the various federal receiving institutions during 1970, 1,967, 45 per cent, had previously been incarcerated one or more times in a federal penal institution.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1971-72, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Department of Communications?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: 1 and 2. In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned:
July 4, 1973

Order Paper Questions
Region	69/70	(per capita)	70/71	(per capita)	71/72	(per capita)	TotalAtlantic	4,209	SO. 0024	4,209Quebec	29,991	SO. 005	363,802	SO. 06	1,345,828	SO. 22	1,739,621Ontario	494,857	SO. 066	1,400,068	$0.18	5,264,894	SO. 68	7,159,819Central	-	77,090	SO. 02	590,050	SO.166	667,140Pacific	-	-	22,821	$0.01	22,821524,848	1,840,960	7.227,802	9,593,610
1968/69-The department not yet formed.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4828


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4828?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Project No. H-4828 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-5149


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5149?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5149 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-5182


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5182?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5182 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-5183


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5183?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5183 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-5283


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5283?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5283 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-5769


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5769?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5769 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-5946


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5946?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5946 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-6239


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6239?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6239 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-6255


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6255?

July 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6255 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-6374


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6374?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6374 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-6376


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6376?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6376 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-6378


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6378?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6378 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-6504


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6504?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6504 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-6548


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6548?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6548 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-6549


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6549?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6549 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-6554


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6554?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6554 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than for which there were funds. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-6555


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6555?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6555 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-6599


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6599?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-6599 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than for which there were
July 4, 1973

funds. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 753(5), what department of government is in receipt of unclassified information derived from the United States nuclear submersible vessels data gathering program?
2.	What is the assessment of government of such information, in terms of (a) accuracy (b) usefulness?
3.	To what actual use are such data being presently put?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Environment External Affairs, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Transport and the National Research Council that they are not in receipt of unclassified information derived from the United States nuclear submersible vessels data gathering program.


Mr. Matte: 1.	How many employees of the 1971-72 LIP Program were already employed when they started work on a LIP project?
2.	How many were receiving unemployment insurance?
3.	How many were on welfare?
4.	How many were registered at Manpower Centres?
5.	How many were farmers?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Definitive data such as requested was not maintained by the Program in 1971-72. Some information is available from an analysis, collected on the basis of employee questionnaires. Of an estimated 92,000 workers in the 1971-72 program: 1. Approximately 15,000 were employed prior to starting work on LIP projects. Of this 15,000, 38 per cent were employed part-time; 30 per cent were on lay-off; 26 per cent were in a slack period with little or no income, e.g., farmers, fishermen; 3 per cent not classified; 3 per cent who may have left full-time jobs to take LIP work.
2.	Approximately 23,000 employees reported their main source of income, prior to LIP, to be from Unemployment Insurance benefits.
3.	Approximately 11,000 employees reported their main source of income, prior to LIP, to be from welfare.
4.	LIP workers were not required to be registered at Manpower Centres in the 1971-72 Program.
5.	Farmers were not recorded as such but approximately 24,000 workers were recorded in the category "Farming, Fishing, Forestry or Mining".


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many copies are made of each speech given by the Minister of Agriculture?
2.	Is the waste paper from M.P.'s waste baskets recycled?
Order Paper Questions


John Mercer Reid: In so far as Agriculture Canada and Crown Assets Disposal Corporation are concerned: 1. One thousand nine hundred sixty-eight.
2.	No.
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND/OR INFORMATION OFFICERS


Mr. McKinnon: How many public relations officers and/or information officers (a) are now employed by government departments and agencies in Ottawa and Hull (b) were employed by the government departments and agencies in Ottawa and Hull in April, 1968?


John Mercer Reid: (a) 546; (b) 309.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government considering any further appointments whatsoever, as of this date, of persons who were formerly candidates of the Liberal Party or formerly Liberal Members of Parliament or formerly executive officers of the Liberal Party in any capacity whatsoever and, if so, what appointments are being considered and who are the individuals involved?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: appointments are governed by statutes and in relation to this question fall into three broad categories: (a) appointments by the Public Service Commission, Agencies, Boards, Commissions, etc. are based on merit; (b) appointments by the Governor in Council are made on the recommendation of appropriate ministers in light of particular requirements and availability of candidates at the time; (c) appointments of personal ministerial staff by a minister, party affiliation may or may not be a consideration in this instance just as has been the practice followed by ministers of governments in the past. Government consideration of appointments relates to those in category (b). It is not possible to forecast accurately all vacancies which may occur. All candidates will be considered on the basis that is applicable in each instance.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to promote the teaching of different cultures and languages in (a) primary schools (b) secondary schools (c) universities by using textbooks based on each ethnic group's background and which would consist of (i) old and modern plays (ii) folklores (iii) traditions (iv) history (v) arts (vi) religion (vii) other?
2.	Has the government made any attempts to negotiate with the Governments of the USSR and the People's Republic of China some cultural agreements which would encourage the exchange of youth and academicians from these two countries for the purpose of promoting and encouraging multiculturalism?


John Mercer Reid: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. Grants are made to ethnic groups wishing to produce textbooks and other teaching materials for ancestral languages. The possibility of additional fed-

July 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
eral aid to the teaching of non-official languages is under study at the present time.
2.	A General Exchanges Agreement between Canada and the USSR was signed by the Prime Minister and the Soviet Premier, Alexei Kosygin, during the latter's visit to Canada in October 1971. Following upon the agreement, a program of Scientific, Academic and Cultural Exchanges and co-operation between Canada and the USSR for 1972/73 was signed in Moscow on June 9, 1972. Canada has no cultural agreement with the People's Republic of China so far but Canadian and Chinese officials meet frequently in order to find ways and means to encourage and facilitate exchanges and co-operation in scientific, academic and cultural fields.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money in the Public Service Superannuation Account as of (a) March 31, 1971 (b) March 31, 1972 (c) March 31, 1973?
2.	What rate of interest does the government pay for the use of the workers money?
3.	(a) What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (i) March 31, 1971 (ii) March 31, 1972 (iii) March 31, 1973 (b) what were the rates of interest for the three years?
4.	Does the government actually contribute their share to the fund, or is it merely a book entry?
5.	Of the interest credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account, is this calculated on the employer and employee contributions, or is it on the employees' contributions only?
6.	What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Account for the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1971 (b) March 31, 1972 (c) March 31, 1973 as pension benefits?
7.	(a) What other uses were funds from the Public Service Superannuation Account put to in terms of investment, etc. (b) how much was invested and with whom?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: All of the information requested in respect of the fiscal year which ended on March 31, 1973 is not yet available. 1. The total amount in the Public Service Superannuation Account was: (a) $3,990.0 million at March 31, 1971; (b) $4,488.5 million at March 31, 1972.
2.	Interest is credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account on a quarterly basis in each fiscal year in respect of the balance to the credit of the Superannuation Account on the last day of each quarter. Such interest is calculated as if all contributions made to the Superannuation Account in each quarter less the amount paid from the account in that quarter had been invested since the account started in 1924, on a basis similar to that applied under the Canada Pension Plan, and as if those amounts were re-invested at current rates every 20 years. The rate of interest used for the account as a whole is the weighted average rate for the amounts so invested in respect of each quarter. Accordingly, the rate can change every quarter. At present the Canada Pension Plan rate is equal to the average yield on government of Canada bonds with 20 or more years to maturity so that new funds and reinvested funds from 1953 are currently earning interest at the rate of 7.26 per cent. Interest earned by the excess of the quarterly interest rate over one per cent is applied as required by law to form part of the amortization payments

required to reduce actuarial deficiencies arising primarily out of salary increases. Such additional interest in the amount of $49.5 million and $65.3 million was applied in this way during the fiscal years 1970-1971 and 1971-1972, respectively.
3.	(a) The amount of interest credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account was: (i) $147.7 million during the fiscal year 1970-1971 plus the $49.5 million additional interest applied as described in (2) above; (ii) $163.7 million during the fiscal year 1971-1972 plus the $65.3 million additional interest applied as described in (2) above; (b) The average rate of interest was 5.3460 per cent for the fiscal year 1970-1971, 5.5895 per cent for the fiscal year 1971-1972 and 5.8969 per cent for the fiscal year 1972-1973.
4.	The various government contributions to the Public Service Superannuation Account form part of government expenditure for each fiscal year and, accordingly, are detailed in the Appropriation and Expenditure section of Volume I of the Public Accounts. Furthermore, the government's responsibility to pay the benefits guaranteed by the legislation is recorded in the statement of Assets and Liabilities of the Public Accounts.
5.	Interest credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account is calculated on both employer and employee contributions.
6.	Total disbursements from the Public Service Superannuation Account were: (a) $107.7 million during the fiscal year 1970-1971; (b) $118.6 million during the fiscal year 1971-1972.
7.	Funds that are not needed for the immediate payment of pensions are invested, as required by law, in book liabilities of the government of Canada. They are used for the general purposes of the government of Canada in the same way as are the proceeds of the sale of government of Canada bonds. This is in accordance with parliament's acceptance of the procedures recommended by the Royal Commission on Government Organization.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	Did the Department of the Environment publish a limited number of copies of Evaluation of Environmental Intangibles, by N. H. Coomber and A. K. Biswas, employees, respectively, of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of the Environment?
2.	Has this book now been published by an American publisher?
3.	What steps, if any, did the government take to offer to Canadian publishers the opportunity to publish this book?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	As per usual publication policy, the report was offered to several Canadian publishers for publishing, but was declined.
July 4, 1973


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What car-leasing firm was awarded the government contract to lease cars to Information Canada in Winnipeg?
2.	What criteria were used by the government in awarding the contract?
3.	(a) What are the names of those car-leasing firms which competed for the Information Canada contract (b) are the prices of the company that was awarded the contract comparable to those of other firms which competed for the government contract?
4.	What does it cost Information Canada in Winnipeg to lease these automobiles?
5.	How many cars are being leased by Information Canada in Winnipeg?
6.	For what purposes are Information Canada employees in Winnipeg using the leased automobiles?
7.	What was the amount in dollars of each company's bid for the car-leasing contract?


John Mercer Reid: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services and Information Canada are concerned: 1. R. F. Sturgeon Leasing & Warehousers Limited, c/o Airways Rent-a-Car of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
2.	Lowest tendered price per vehicle per month for the type of automobile specified.
3.	(a) Eleven firms were invited to tender but only the following two firms submitted tenders: R. F. Sturgeon Leasing & Warehousers Ltd.; Penny Leasing, a division of Budget Rent-a-Car, Winnipeg; (b) Yes. The tender price of the selected contractor was 20% lower than that of his competitor.
4.	One hundred fifty-five dollars and 50 cents per month per automobile.
5.	Six.
6.	Cars in Manitoba are being used by mobile officers and their supervisor. They are necessary because of the large areas mobile officers have to cover. Without them, transportation costs would be excessive.
7.	R. F. Sturgeon Leasing & Warehousers Ltd. $155.50 per vehicle per month. Penny Saving, division of Budget Rent-a-Car, Winnipeg. $195 per vehicle per month.


Mr. Nielsen: What was the total revenue collected by the Department of Transport as a result of imposing a Hi cent per gallon concession fee on aviation gasoline at Department-operated airports across Canada for the fiscal year 1972-1973?


Jean Marchand: Revenue Collected, $8,779,307.


Mr. Boisvert: How many corporations did not pay taxes (a) in 1970 (i) in Canada (ii) in Quebec (iii) in Ontario (b) in 1971 (i) in Canada (ii) in Quebec (iii) in Ontario?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: Figures are not available to provide a precise comparison on the number of corporations that did not pay income taxes in the years 1970 and 1971 in Quebec, Ontario and Canada. However, figures are available covering the 12-month period ending December 31, 1970, and the 12 months ending March 31, 1972, which period includes the last nine months of 1971 plus the first three months of 1972. The available figures are as follows:
Number of Corporations That
Did Not Pay Income Taxes	1970	1971-1972Quebec	23,070	23,593Ontario	35,230	39,201Canada	99,826	110,119
It should be noted that for the purpose of answering this question a "corporation that did not pay tax" is defined as an active corporation, other than a co-operative or personal corporation, that filed a T2 tax return and that declared either a loss or nil taxable income. Allocation of a corporation to a province is based on the income tax office in which the return was filed. The Ottawa district embraces an area partly in Ontario and partly in Quebec, therefore there is a slight overstatement for Ontario and understatement for Quebec. It is expected that this unavoidable bias would be the same for both 1970 and 1971.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Are any Canadian authorities investigating any circumstances whatsoever pertaining to an individual travelling from Montreal to New York City by a commercial airline on or about January 12, 1973 and, if so (a) for what reason (b) at whose request?
2.	What is the name of the individual involved and under what name was he travelling?
3.	Who is carrying out this investigation in Canada and what has been found out to date?
4.	Is anything known by Canadian authorities about this person's activities after his arrival in New York City?


William Warren Allmand: 1, 2, 3 and 4.
It is an accepted principle that information about police investigations of the nature alluded to is not normally disclosed to the public.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is Mr. Ray Perrault's function with the office of the Minister of the Environment?
2.	To whom does he report?
3.	Out of which office does he work?
4.	Is he required to make frequent trips to Vancouver and, if so, for what reasons?
5.	Under whose authority did Mr. Perrault speak to the Vancouver Board of Trade on April 2 on the topic "How I'd Run a Municipal Government"?

July 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Bill Rompkey: 1, 2 and 3. See reply to Question No. 517 answered May 16, 1973.
4.	In the course of his duties, Mr. Perrault is required to make trips to the west coast and other destinations.
5.	As a private individual.


Mr. Godin: 1.	Are construction materials manufactured or processed on Indian reservations subject to the 11 per cent tax?
2.	Are shoes, gloves and mitts, as well as all other garments made on Indian reservations exempt from the 12 per cent federal sales tax?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: 1. In accordance with the provisions of the Excise Tax Act construction materials "manufactured or produced" on Indian reservations are subject to federal sales tax in the same manner as those manufactured or produced elsewhere in Canada.
2.	Where gloves, mitts and garments are manufactured or produced on Indian reservations the sales tax would apply unless the manufacturer or producer qualified as a "small manufacturer". A person is considered to be a small manufacturer, for the purposes of the Excise Tax Act, when the annual sales value of the goods produced for sale exclusively to consumers or users or for the manufacturer's own use does not exceed $3,000. Children's clothing, including gloves and mitts for children, was among the exemptions proposed by the Minister of Finance in the budget speech of February 19, 1973. This exemption would apply to the affected goods when manufactured or produced on Indian reservations.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	What was the per unit price charged for the 22 CF 104 aircraft sold to Norway?
2.	What was the per unit price originally paid for these aircraft by the government?
3.	At the time of their sale, how much of their projected airframe life had been expended?
4.	Were replacement parts also sold to Norway and, if so (a) were they taken from stock (b) did they involve the placement of new orders with Canadian companies and what was their value?


John Mercer Reid: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of National Defence are concerned: 1. The unit price of the surplus CF-104 aircraft sold to Norway was $200,000.
2.	The original unit price paid for the aircraft was approximately $1,700,000.
3.	At the time of the sale the 22 aircraft on the average had expended 63 per cent of their airframe life.
4.	(a) Replacement spare parts have been sold to Norway; to date these have been taken from stock; (b) We have received requests from Norway to supply price and availability for replacement spares and it is anticipated

that this will result in orders being placed by Norway on Canadian industry. No orders have yet been placed.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	What is the nature of and how many representations have been received by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or have been transmitted to him by colleagues in the Cabinet, since January 1, 1972 relative to a proposal for the national licensing of physicians and surgeons in Canada rather than preserving this jurisdiction to the provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons?
2. What has been the nature of the reply to such representations?
3.	What consideration and what action has been taken in regard to such proposals?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Since January 1, 1972, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has received representations from only one person in Canada, by letter, relative to a proposal for the national licensing of physicians and surgeons in Canada rather than preserving this jurisdiction to the provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons.
2.	The nature of the reply was to point out that the responsibility for licensing physicians remains strictly within provincial jurisdiction. All provincial licensing authorities have recognized the need for a common mechanism in Canada to determine the attainment of the Licentiate Medical Council of Canada as an appropriate standard, but some provinces do not insist on this. In many provinces, the examinations for graduation at a medical school are set by the L.M.C.C. body with the result that a student, on obtaining his M.D. qualification, also receives his L.M.C.C. certificate. This approach is becoming more common and, as such, is a measure for establishing national portability. The problem of mobility of physicians has been a matter of concern to national and provincial professional associations and to the federal and provincial governments. This was the basic reason for the establishment of the Medical Council of Canada.
3.	The one proposal has been considered, but no specific action is contemplated.


Mr. Rose: 1.	Is Mr. Ray Perrault employed by the government and, if so (a) where is he located (b) what are his duties (c) what salary is he being paid?
2.	Does Mr. Perrault have any responsibilities for OFY or LIP and, if so, what are these responsibilities?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Yes; (a) See reply to Question No. 517 answered May 16, 1973; (b) See reply to Question No. 517 answered May 16, 1973; (c) See reply to Question No. 612 answered May 28, 1973.
2.	No formal responsibilities. In addition to his other duties, Mr. Perrault assists the minister in the established parliamentary practice of reviewing requests for LIP and OFY grants.


Mr. Wise: 1.	How many bids were submitted for the installation for the new incinerator at Westminster Hospital, London, Ontario?
2.	For what reason did the government decide to extend the April 10, 1973 closing date for tenders on this installation to April 30, 1973?
3.	Were bidders supplied with specification requirements or forms for this installation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Three on original invitation, four on the second tender call.
2.	The closing date was not extended. The first invitation closed on April 10. A second invitation was issued on April 16 after it was discovered that a firm, qualified to fill the requirement, had, inadvertently, been left off the list of those invited the first time. A contract has been awarded to the company making the lowest offer on the second call.
3.	Yes.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	On what date will the new mint, to be located in Winnipeg, begin operation?
2.	What will be the total number of persons employed by the mint and of this total number, how many must be bilingual?
3.	How many of those to be employed at the mint will come from (a) Quebec (b) Ontario (c) Manitoba (d) other provinces?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as the Royal Canadian Mint is concerned: 1. The present construction and equipment schedule for the new Mint in Winnipeg provides for it to be in operation by September, 1974.
2.	The number of persons to be employed at the outset will be in the area of 100. Because the present staff whose positions are being moved will be given priority and because at least 50 per cent of the present Mint staff is bilingual, it is anticipated that a similar percentage of the number of employees to be moved to Winnipeg will be bilingual.
3.	It is not yet known how many employees will wish to transfer from the present Mint in Ottawa to the new Mint in Winnipeg, but when this has been decided it is expected that the large majority of the 100 employees will move from the Hull-Ottawa area, and any balance required will be recruited from the Manitoba area.


Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the government give immediate consideration to restoring the pre-clearance of passengers on flights from Toronto and Montreal to the United States, the cancellation of which has caused much delay and frustration?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the right hon. gentleman that the whole issue of pre-clearance which is closely linked with the Canada/United States air routes negotiations is receiving the closest attention. I
Order Paper Questions
cannot say more at this stage as we are still negotiating but the pattern will be clearer in a few weeks time.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	How many new national parks are now being planned?
2.	What is the location of each proposed new park?
3.	What is the expected date on which each park will be formally established?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1 and 2. Potential national park areas are under various stages of negotiation with the following provinces: (1) Nova Scotia (Ship Harbour), memorandum of Intent signed. Terms being discussed with the province. (2) Newfoundland (Gros Morne), memorandum of Intent signed. Terms being discussed with the province. (3) Prince Edward Island (East Point), under public review by the Province. (4) Quebec, under discussion with the province. (5) Manitoba, inactive at present. (6) Saskatchewan, inactive at present.
3.	Formal establishment of parks depends on the signature of agreements by federal and provincial governments. Dates for completion of negotiations and signature of agreements cannot be anticipated.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	In each of the past ten years, on how many occasions has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cancelled a contract between his Department and a consultant?
2.	In each case (a) what was the date of the cancellation (b) what was the name of the consultant (c) what was the subject-matter into which the consultant had been contracted to inquire
(d)	what was the reason for the cancellation (e) how much money was paid in settlement by the government (f) what became of the work done by the consultant prior to the cancellation of contract?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Two.
2.	(i) (a) December 27, 1960; (b) P. J. Stokes, B. Arch; (c) restoration of Bellevue House, Kingston, Ontario; (d) consultant unable to devote adequate time to ensure completion as scheduled prior to the opening of Expo 67 by Her Majesty the Queen. Cancellation was by mutual consent;
(e)	$1,140; (f) contribution to the over-all development and restoration of Bellevue House; (ii) (a) December 6, 1972; (b) Pierre Larouche & Associes; (c) Regional outline for La Mauricie National Park; (d) violation of Article 14 of General Conditions "The consultant shall make no public announcements regarding the work carried out under the contract"; (e) $6,500; (f) the material produced by the consultant prior to cancellation was made available by the department to another consultant to complete the report.
5280

July 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mather: 1.	Were any studies undertaken of the impact on employees before the decision to relocate the Pacific Weather Central on the North Shore was taken and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Were any studies undertaken or advice sought from civic or provincial planning authorities on the effects on traffic congestion in the city, and in particular the effects on congestion of the bridges across Burrard Inlet at the time the site was selected and, if not, for what reason?


Bill Rompkey: 1. No, time constraints did not permit the undertaking of in-depth studies of the impact on employees prior to the decision. However, studies are now continuing relative to commuting times of all employees who might be located in the centre.
2.	No, because of time constraints. However, studies are now being initiated to determine the likely effect of the site selection on traffic patterns.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract EDM2-9069/1 for taxi service at Whitehorse, Yukon Territory during the period April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974 in the amount of $10,000 awarded to Black Top Cabs, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. A standing offer in the amount of $10,000 with Black Top Cabs was issued on March 28, 1973.
2.	Yes. (a) Black Top Cabs, 206 Main St., Whitehorse, Y.T.; Yellow Cabs Ltd., 2157, 2nd Ave., Whitehorse, Y.T. (b) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	The services were requisitioned by the Whitehorse General Hospital and Yukon Zone office of the Department of National Health and Welfare to provide transportation in Whitehorse and vicinity.
5.	By Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract KP.66600-3S301 for book paper during the period April 21, 1973 to April 20, 1974 in the amount of $52,000 awarded to Abitibi Provincial Paper Ltd., Toronto, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?

4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) The E. B. Eddy Company, Hull, Quebec; Rolland Paper Company Ltd., Montreal; Domtar Fine Papers Ltd., Montreal; Abitibi-Provincial Paper Ltd., Toronto; Island Paper Mills, New Westminister, British Columbia, (b) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Requisition raised for use by the Department of Supply and Services, Printing Operations, Hull, Quebec.
5.	By formal Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract LD.2792312 for the refit and docking of HMCS Saskatchewan in the amount of $1,399,397 awarded to Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd., St. John, New Brunswick?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Saint John, New Brunswick, and Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal, (b) yes.
3.	No.
4.	Repairs to a naval vessel of the Department of National Defence.
5.	By Invitation to Tender sent to each supplier.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract MON2-10000/1 for grass cutting services at Canadian Forces Base St. Hubert, Quebec, during the period April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1975 in the amount of $20,000 awarded to Pavage du Nord Ltee, Longueuil, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2. Yes; (a) Les Entreprises Pierre Enrg., Montreal; Fau-teux Interprovincial Maintenance Reg'd, Candia, Quebec; Ilario Giugovaz Enrg., Mont St. Gregoire, Quebec; Jack
July 4, 1973

Petrilli Landscaping Contractor Inc., Ville St. Pierre, Quebec; Ronald St. Denis, St. Joseph du Lac, Quebec; Pavage du Nord Ltee, Ville Lemoyne, Quebec; Bau Quebec Ltee, Ville Lemoyne, Quebec; J. Petrilli Inc., Montreal; Williamson Snow Removal & Landscaping, Laval, Quebec; (b) Yes.
Note: Pavage du Nord Ltee, the lowest tenderer, was awarded the contract. After some work at the base, the contractor stated that there is more work involved than he had anticipated, and withdrew his standing offer and made a higher price offer. Consequently, a notice of withdrawal was issued and a new standing offer was arranged with the second lowest tenderer, Ilario Giugovaz. An amount of $512 was paid to Pavage du Nord Ltee for work carried out and the new standing offer has a maximum financial limitation of $19,488.
3.	No.
4.	Canadian Forces Base, St. Hubert, Quebec. The Department of National Defence.
5.	By Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract PR.1040W-3-098 for tabulating cards during the period April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974 in the amount of $46,000 awarded to IBM Canada Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. A standing offer having a maximum value of $46,000 was issued to IBM to supply tabulating cards as required, at firm unit prices.
2.	Yes. (a) IBM Canada Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, was the only firm submitting a tender, (b) the only tender received was accepted.
3.	There are no extra charges. The figure of $46,000 is a financial limit only. The government is not bound to purchase any specified quantity but only the actual quantity required.
4.	The cards are for use by Department of National Defence at Canadian Forces Supply Depots and Bases in Canada.
5.	By an Invitation to Tender sent to each supplier.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract GD.2542007-7 for cranberry sauce during the period April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974 in the amount of $10,225 awarded to H. Fine and Sons Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) H. Fine & Sons Ltd., Ottawa; Foodcraft Laboratories Ltd., Toronto, (b) yes.
3.	No.
4.	Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Bases at; Cornwallis, Nova Scotia; Halifax, Oromocto, Chatham, Moncton, Montreal, Bagotville, North Bay, Ottawa, Petawa, Kingston, Winnipeg, Moose Jaw, Victoria and Calgary.
5.	By Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract MY.3632227 for tractor mounted loaders and spares in the amount of $64,659 awarded to John Deere Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) John Deere Ltd. Hamilton, Ontario; International Harvester Co. of Canada Ottawa, Ontario; Crothers Ltd. Toronto, Ontario, (b) yes.
3.	No.
4.	In the Arctic areas of Canada by Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
5.	By an Invitation to Tender sent to each supplier.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract OTT2-27717/1 for the inspection and repairs to exterior doors at Canadian Forces Base Ottawa, Ontario during the period April 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974 in the amount of $18,500 awarded to Bower Construction Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?
26446-44^

July 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Bower Construction Limited, Ottawa and A1 Parsons Electronics, Ottawa, (b) yes.
3.	No.
4.	The contract covers inspection and repairs to external door at Canadian Forces Base Ottawa and various other locations in the Ottawa area for the Department of National Defence.
5.	By Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract GA.M0077-2-C901 for socks in the amount of $26,896 awarded to London Hosiery Mills (1971) Ltd., London, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Kennebec Knitting Mills, St. Louis de Pinten-dre, Cte Levis, Quebec; Hanson Mills Ltd., 82 Front St., Hull, Quebec; Harvey Woods Ltd., 18 Vansittart Avenue, Woodstock, Ontario; Vagden Mills Limited, P.O. Box 550, Trenton, Ontario; Ontario Hosiery Mfg. Co. Ltd., 675 King St. W., Toronto 2B, Ontario; London Hosiery Co. Ltd., 646 Adelaide St., London, Ontario, (b) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	All locations in Canada. Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
5.	By Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract GA.2512120 for women's raincoats in the amount of $26,250 awarded to Anglo Traders Ltd., Toronto, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2. Yes. (a) Anglo Traders Ltd., 1315 Davenport Rd., Toronto 173, Ontario; Outdoor OUtfits Ltd., 372 Richmond Street West, Toronto, Ontario, (b) yes.

3.	No.
4.	All locations in Canada. Department of National Defence.
5.	By Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is Information Canada considering changes in the policy of free distribution of government publications to libraries?
2.	Will the government maintain the policy of full and partial depositories rather than libraries having to pay a global subscription rate for government publications?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. No
change is contemplated for those classes of libraries now covered by the free distribution policy.
2. There is no intention to introduce a Global Subscription System for full or Selective Depository Libraries.


Mr. Marshall: Is it the practice of UIC to inform people that overpayments may be repaid by means of weekly deductions from their unemployment insurance cheque and, if not, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, provided the claim is still active and no fraud was involved. In the event of fraud, the entire amount of the benefit warrants is applied against the overpayment, until such time as it has been repaid or the claim becomes dormant.


Mr. Scott: 1.	How many loans were granted under the Small Business Loans Act in the past three years?
2.	How many businesses applied?
3.	What was the breakdown of the approved loans on a province by province basis?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1 and 3:
Following number of loans were made under the Small Businesses Loans Act in the province indicated.
1970	1971	1972British Columbia	298	385	456Alberta	129	226	275Saskatchewan	99	170	174Manitoba	70	113	133Ontario	317	469	596Quebec	351	645	1,091New Brunswick	31	54	45Nova Scotia	53	43	37Prince Edward Island	13	13	31Newfoundland	4	7	5Yukon	1	-	1Northwest Territories	1	4	2Total	1,367	2,129	2,846
July 4, 1973

2. Under the act, a responsible officer of the bank is required to scrutinize and check any application with the care required of him by the bank in the conduct of its ordinary business. Lenders are required to report only on the number of loans made and not on the number of applications received.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. What is the description of the work performed by Mr. Ivan Head, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister since January 1, 1973?
2. What specific special assignments have been given or allotted to Mr. Ivan Head since January 1, 1973 (a) what parts of Canada has he visited (b) what other countries has he visited (c) who has accompanied him in each case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. See the
answ.er to part 2 of Question No. 409 found at pages 1039 and 1040 of Hansard, February 7, 1973.
2. Since January 1, 1973 Mr. Head has not undertaken any assignments involving travel within Canada. Since that date, however, he has completed a series of consultations with Commonwealth heads of government preparatory to the Commonwealth heads of government meeting to be held in Ottawa August 2-10, 1973. In the course of those consultations he visited the following countries (in order of travel): Western Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Australia, New Zealand, The Gambia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Zambia, Malawi, Swaziland, Botswana, Lesotho, Mauritius, Tanzania, Britain, Malta, Cyprus, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Barbados, Jamaica, Bahamas. He was accompanied in his discussions by the Canadian High Commissioner or Acting High Commissioner in each case that there was a resident Canadian High Commission.


Mr. Cossitt: To whom has the Post Office Department allotted postage meter number 156486?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Government of Canada, Department of National Health and Welfare, Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa, Ontario.


Mr. Cossitt: To whom has the Post Office Department allotted postage meter number 156485?


André Ouellet: Princess Auto and Machine Limited, 600 Planet Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Order Paper Questions INTEREST FREE LOANS


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	In the past year how many interest-free loans have been made to countries around the world?
2.	What were the countries and what were the amounts loaned to each and for what periods?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the reply is as follows: 1. Thirty-nine interest-free loans have been made to countries during the fiscal year 1972-73.
2. The periods covered by the loans all begin in 1972-73 and all extent to the year 2022-23.
Country	Amount ($000)
St. Lucia	350
Botswana	10,000
East African Community	26,000
Ghana	1,550
Kenya	3,750
Nigeria	10,750
Tanzania	7,670
Uganda	1,350
Sri Lanka	1,500
India	54,342
Indonesia	7,325
Algeria	655
Zaire Republic	170
Dahomey	6,460
Ivory Coast	2,500
Niger	1,300
Senegal	3,590
Togo	1,416
Tunisia	14,700
Dominican Republic	7,474
Eucador	8,888
Nepal	1,300


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What has been the total cost to the government, including salaries and expenses of regular or permanent employees, of the appraisals, appeals, hearings and other procedure connected with the adjustment of land rentals in the national parks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The total cost to the government, to date, of the appraisals, appeals, hearings and other procedures connected with the most recent adjustment of land rentals in the national parks has been $196,749. No cost figures are available for the salaries or expenses of regular or permanent employees as their participation in this adjustment of land rental was considered

July 4, 1973
Orders for Returns
part of their regular duties. No additional regular employees were hired to work directly on the rental adjustment.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	Who are the suppliers of gasoline and fuel oil for the Province of Quebec?
2.	What gasoline refineries operate in Quebec and where does each such refinery obtain its raw material?
3.	What percentage of its total production does Quebec ship to other parts of Canada and to what provinces?
4.	What percentage of its total production does Quebec export to other countries and to which ones?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. There are three groups of suppliers: (a) Refineries (these process for themselves and others): BP, Montreal; Golden Eagle, St. Romuald; Gulf Oil, Montreal and Point Tupper, N.S.; Imperial Oil, Montreal and Halifax; Irving Oil, Saint John, N.B.; Petrofina, Montreal; Shell, Montreal; Texaco, Montreal and Halifax, (b) Companies that have products refined by the above companies: Murphy Oil; Sun Oil. (c) Major importers (other than those listed under (a) and (b) above): Caloil (New England Petroleum Co.); Canadian Fuel Marketers (Eastern); Metropolitain Petroleum; Natomas.
2.	BP, Montreal; Golden Eagle, St. Romuald; Gulf Oil, Montreal; Imperial Oil, Montreal; Petrofina, Montreal; Shell, Montreal; Texaco, Montreal; Individual refineries' raw material receipts by country of origin not available. Quebec refineries received their raw material from the following sources in 1972: Venezuela, 57.0 per cent; Nigeria, 11.1 per cent; Oman and Abu Dhabi, 9.0 per cent; Libya, 6.3 per cent; Iran, 5.4 per cent; Saudi Arabia, 3.3 per cent; Iraq, 3.2 per cent; Colombia, 2.3 per cent; All others, 2.4 per cent.
3.	Net 17.2 per cent in 1972. Maritime Provinces and Ontario.
4.	6.4 per cent was exported, of which 99 per cent was destined for the U.S.A.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


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

are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

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



GRANTS UNDER AREA DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT, 1966-73

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What are the names of corporations which accepted offers of cash grants under the Area Development Incentives Act (ADIA), in each of the fiscal years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date, distributed by province where the capital expenditure was to be made?
2.	In each case (a) what were the amounts of money committed and what cash payments were made to date (b) how many new jobs were undertaken to be created (c) how many of the projected new jobs are in existence at present (d) what was the projected date of the commencement of commercial operation of the facility in question?
3.	What are the names of the recipients of ADIA grants who (a) are at present overdue with the projected date of commencement of commercial production (b) notified the department that the planned facility will not proceed with commercial production (c) started commercial production in the planned facility and have since discontinued operations in the facility (d) are still expected to start commercial production in the facility in the future?
4.	What were the amounts of grants recovered by the department in cases reported under Part 3(c)?
5.	What are the objectives of the above Program?
6.	Has the department conducted any evaluation study of the Program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS FROM PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Mr. Wagner: 1.	How many applications for grants has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion received from the Province of Quebec, since the Department was established?
2.	How many applications have been accepted, which ones, and what is the amount involved in each case?
3.	How many applications have been rejected, which ones, and for what reasons?
July 4, 1973

Motions for Papers



NATIONAL DEFENCE-CANADIAN AIR FORCE UNITS

[Stage Direction]
4.	What were the names and addresses of industries in Quebec having declared bankruptcy or having assigned their property or closed down later obtained a grant from the Department?
5.	What were the name's and addresses of industries in Quebec which, after receiving grants from the Department declared bankruptcy assigned their property, closed down or sold their full or majority control interests to other Canadian or American industrialists with specific details indicating to which of the foregoing categories they belong?
6.	What were the names of industries in Quebec which created new jobs after receiving a grant?
7.	How many jobs have been actually created in each case?
8.	What were the names of Quebec firms which have not created jobs after receiving a grant?
9.	What were the names of Quebec firms which laid off employees after receiving a grant and how many were laid off in each case?
10.	What were the names of publishing firms, industries or daily newspapers which received a grant though an investigation by the Department showed that they did not really need it?
11.	What were the names of firms which received one or more grants from the Department and whose present or past directors or shareholders have or had been associated in any way with the government, a department, a Crown corporation, or minister's office?
Return tabled.

Mr. Grier: 1.	What was the amount of each (a) grants (b) loans (c) duty remissions (d) subsidies made by each department, Crown corporation and agency to each of Bell Canada Ltd., and its subsidiaries (i) Northern Electric Co. Ltd. (ii) North American Telegraph Ltd. (iii) Newfoundland Telephone Co. Ltd. (iv) Capital Telephone Company Ltd. (v) Maitland Teleservices Ltd. (vi) Northern Telephone Ltd. (vii) The New Brunswick Telephone Company Ltd. (viii) Telebec Ltd. (ix) Caradoc-Ekfrid Telephone Company Ltd. (x) Oxford Telephone Ltd. (xi) Micro Systems International for each of the past four fiscal years?
2.	What is the dollar amount of contracts for the purchase of goods and services from each of the companies listed above by each department, Crown corporation and agency?
3.	What is the annual rent paid by each department, Crown corporation and agency for the use of premises in buildings owned or leased by Bell Canada?
Return tabled.



COST OF LE DAIN COMMISSION

Mr. Muir: 1.	What is the total cost of the Le Dain Commission to date?
2.	How many research contracts have been issued by the Le Dain Commission?
3.	For what purposes were these contracts issued and how much did each cost?
Return tabled.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-CANADIAN NAVY UNITS

Mr. Boisvert: How many units are available in the Canadian Navy for the defence of the country?
Return tabled.

Question No. 2,038-Mr. Boisvert:
How many units are available in the Canadian Air Force for the defence of the country?
Return tabled.



FOREIGN AID TO AFRICAN COUNTRIES, 1970-72

Mr. Wise: 1.	To what African countries does Canada provide foreign aid?
2.	What was the total amount of this aid to these countries during the years 1970, 1971 and 1972?
3.	In what form was this aid given to these countries?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 206 and 235.



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE BY CMHC RELATING TO CERTAIN HOUSES AT PLACE DE LA PROMENADE, NEUFCHATEL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 206-Mr. Godin:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents or reports prepared by representatives of CMHC following an enquiry made January 22, in relation to certain houses located at Place de la Promenade at Neufchatel.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CANADA POST OFFICE-COPY OF REPORT BY P.S. ROSS AND PARTNERS, MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 235-Mr. McKenzie:
That an Order of this House do issue for a copy of the report prepared by P.S. Ross and Partners, Management Consultants, of cost ascertainment study for the Canada Post Office.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the cost ascertainment study requested in this motion is an internal working document and is therefore considered confidential. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. McKenzie:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notices stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 4, 1973
Oral Questions
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD	THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



FINANCE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. When the minister was assiduously evading the questions of the hon. member for Edmonton West on interest rates yesterday, was he aware that the Toronto-Dominion Bank had raised its rates on conventional national housing mortgages to 9.75 per cent? Is it the intention of the government to take any action or does the government contemplate any action to prevent this further round of increases, or does it intend to sit on its status quo and allow interest rate increases to further accelerate?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking in the House yesterday, I was not aware ot the position of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. The mortgage rates, of course, reflect the very strong demand for credit which still has not peaked. There is a strong competition for funds in response to expansion of the economy. I might say to the hon. member that rates on low income housing have not changed. If the House would see fit to pass the bill of my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Bill C-135, the residential mortgage act, we would be able to inject more funds into the mortgage market.


Gerald William Baldwin: If I might simply comment, we will deal with the other legislation when the government's ingenuity is sufficiently well-developed to enable us to do so. I should like to ask the minister this. Is it the position of the government that permitting interest rates on mortgages to rise to such levels that single family housing in the nation is being brought to a stop is the best way to halt inflation and slow down building?


John Napier Turner: We do not consider mortgage rates to be part of the cyclical policy of the government. I would say to the hon. gentleman that the current annual rate of new housing is running at 265,000, the highest in the history of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: In the light of the fact that a great many Canadians disagree with the minister, is it the position of the government that adopting a policy which leads to a high interest rate for home loans is the most effective way to increase the supply of housing?


John Napier Turner: That debating
preamble is not one I wish to pursue at this stage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF POLICY OF SELECTIVE CONTROLS TO FIGHT INFLATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance in the general area of inflation. Does the introduction of export controls on petroleum products, soybeans and proteins indicate a change in government policy to fight inflation, namely, that we are moving toward a type of program involving selective controls?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: Would the Minister of Finance be willing, then, perhaps within the next day or so, to make a statement on motions telling us how these programs relate to any type of policy the government might have to fight inflation?


John Napier Turner: I believe my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, made it quite clear that the temporary export restrictions relating to the products the hon. gentleman mentioned were imposed so as to stabilize the North American situation in response to the United States move.


James McPhail Gillies: Is the Minister of Finance informing the House, then, that we cannot expect to see any further selective controls as a means of controlling the inflation in the economy in the near future?


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. gentleman, in his preamble, is following a wrong avenue, and there is no way in which I can give him an appropriate answer to that question.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I hope this subject will be pursued by my hon. friends. I want to direct some questions to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Last Friday he tabled a number of papers or reports, whatever they may be, and I should like to ask the minister whether he can inform the House as to the status of these papers or reports. Do they represent his views and the views of the federal government? Were they the basis of the approach he made in the discussions he undertook, or in which he is engaging, with the provincial governments affecting the areas covered by those papers? Do they have his stamp of approval?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: It is difficult to answer all those points in the short time available to me. As to the status of the documents referred to, they were as described, working papers. In the initial stage, of course, the information is essentially historical, giving facts regarding the eco-
July 4, 1973

nomic situation in the various regions. The proposals which are set out subsequently in each of the documents are put forward merely as examples of the type of approach which might be pursued, though not necessarily in what I might describe as ail order of priority. They are merely examples we are putting before the provinces in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable or whether they wish to make alternative suggestions.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY WITH REGARD TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

David Lewis: I do not think the minister needs very much time in which to inform the House whether the proposals contained in those papers are proposals which he put before the provincial governments concerned or whether they are merely there as headings for discussion. I am thinking specifically of Northern Ontario. Does the general proposal in the white paper that the only significant area for economic development lies in tourism and recreational activities represent the minister's policy with regard to northern Ontario, thereby abandoning any intention of building secondary industry based on the primary resources of the area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party is working under a misapprehension which was reflected in a comment by one of his colleagues yesterday. We did not state, even as an example, that tourism was the only area ot development. In point of fact, there were many other suggestions put forward. If the hon. gentleman is asking me whether we believe that secondary manufacturing and processing of natural resources represents a good opportunity for northern Ontario, the answer is yes. We will be happy to work with the government of Ontario and within the federal power in order to do that.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the minister's general comment to the effect that he has already been discussing with the Premier of Ontario and, I suppose, with other ministers, the possibility of programs for development of northern Ontario. However, I suggest to him, through you, that he should inform us, and I ask him to do so, whether he has made any proposal to the Premier of Ontario, or whether the premier has made any proposals to him, for the development of secondary industry in northern Ontario, or are they both agreed that northern Ontario is to be the playground for those living in southern Ontario?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman persists in putting a totally false representation on what was said in the paper. I did not, nor does the paper, confine the proposals exclusively to this.


David Lewis: But primarily?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We are talking about a number-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not even primarily to this. However, if the hon. member, his colleagues or anybody else wishes to deny that northern Ontario is one of the most attractive areas in the country and does have potential for development, then I will be prepared to argue that point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Before we pursue the debate on the attractions of northern Ontario, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue, and we will have supple-mentaries on the first question thereafter.

[ Translation]



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since Quebec Agriculture Minister Toupin accuses the federal government of practicing discrimination against eastern farmers concerning feed grains, would the Minister of Agriculture state whether he had recent discussions with his Quebec counterpart and what solution does the minister intend to suggest in order to eliminate that discrimination which the federal department is charged with?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have not met with the provincial minister of agriculture for Quebec recently, but our officials and those in his office have been in contact with one another. I can say that when the feed grain program is ready for unveiling or presentation to the provincial people and the farm organizations, it will be the least discriminatory possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: It will be a new unveiling.
[ Transla tion]



FEED GRAINS-INQUIRY RESPECTING LETTER FROM QUEBEC MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE TO FEDERAL MINISTER

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Would the Minister of Agriculture say whether he has received a personal letter from the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, according to his statements?
[ English]


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on occasions I receive 400 letters a day, but I have not had a chance to check my mail completely this week. I will check thoroughly to find out if I have received a letter from him.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.

July 4, 1973
Oral Questions
The hon. minister can very well say that he receives 400 letters a day, but he must have received only one from the Quebec Minister of Agriculture. Let's not try to bury the question; the hon. minister should tell us if he has had, yes or no, contacts with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York-Simcoe.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's repeated statements that Canada's performance in containing inflation has been good when compared to other countries-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -and in view of the fact the minister has used this as an argument for his government not instituting controls in Canada, would he now reconsider his position of not imposing such controls in light of the fact published by the Bank of Canada last week which indicates that Canada for the 12-month period ending in April had the worst performance of the seven industrialized countries reviewed by the bank, even worse than the United Kingdom?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a statement rather than asking a question. It seems to me it is more a representation than a question. If there is a question somewhere in the hon. member's statement, he might make it clear so that the minister would have an opportunity to reply to the hon. member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the minister is: since the Bank of Canada has indicated that his earlier premise is wrong, would the minister now consider instituting price and wage controls in order to help relieve inflation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer of the Minister of Finance, and the facts presented by the Bank of Canada, would the Prime Minister now consider handing back the Oscar that he thought he had received for good performance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands on a supplementary.



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's oft-repeated statement in the House that he and the governor of the Bank of Canada have impressed upon the heads of the chartered banks the necessity of allocating specific amounts of money for those applying under the legislation for loans to fishermen, farmers and small businessmen, I want to ask the minister if he has monitored the situation, or has the Bank of Canada, to see how much money has been allocated for this purpose and can he tell the House what amount of money has been set aside to be available for these groups?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance are both monitoring the figures. It is premature as yet to say what the results have been because of the fact that long-term credit commitments take time to work out. When the figures are available, I will be glad to give them to the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that complaints are coming in to many members that fishermen, farmers and small businessmen have been unable to get the benefit of the loans legislation, can the minister indicate before the House now what request he made to the banks with respect to the amount to be set aside for this purpose?


John Napier Turner: We were not dealing in terms of specific amounts. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that if he can give me any legitimate complaints from his constituents, I would be glad to have them checked out as I have for many members on both sides of the House.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State examined the document he recently tabled in this House entitled "Federal-Provincial Program of Co-Operation for the Development of Bilingualism in Education at the Pre-university Level" and is the Secretary of State satisfied that the money voted by this parliament is in fact being used in each province for bilingual education? If not, what action does the minister intend to take to rectify the situation?
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The minister is absent for a few minutes; I

will transmit this important question to the minister who,
I am sure, shall give an appropriate answer as soon as possible.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the obvious breakdown in the attempts to arrange the return of the two Canadian officers who have been missing in Viet Nam now for nearly a week, would the Prime Minister advise the House what specific action he is taking as head of the government which sent these men into Viet Nam to facilitate their immediate return.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government does not admit the premise of the question. There is no breakdown. Discussions are continuing between the Canadian representatives in Viet Nam and the representatives of the PRG.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Defence. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs will permit him to answer the question today. In light of the statement by the Viet Cong that they are ready to give all necessary assistance for the recovery of the two men, can the minister advise the House whether either the ICCS or a Canadian contingent has conducted any searches into the area concerned accompanied and assisted by Viet Cong troops?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are intensive negotiations and discussions taking place to achieve the immediate recovery and return to base of Captain Patten and Captain Thomson.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the Prime Minister. Does the government not think it is failing in its duty when it is unable to give anything more than stock answers to tell the House and the country what is happening in this case-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria.



DISAPPEARANCE OF TWO CANADIAN OFFICERS ATTACHED TO CONTROL COMMISSION-POSSIBLE DATE OF RELEASE

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and is supplementary. If it is the belief of the government that these men are being held by the PRG, can he tell the House when he expects the two men, who are serving under his jurisdiction, will be released?
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: I am not certain I heard the question, Mr. Speaker. I could hardly believe what I did hear. If it was that the officers in charge should be released, there is absolutely no thought of that. They have been doing an excellent job under the circumstances.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister did not hear the question. It did not refer to release from the services. I referred to the release of the people being held captive in Viet Nam.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I answered just a moment ago that highest priority discussions and negotiations are taking place on the site in Saigon to effect the recovery of the missing officers.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement on page 19 of the report tabled in the House last Friday by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and in view of the statement that opportunities for industrial development are minimal in northern Ontario and will take place only on the southern fringes of the region, can the minister assure the House that regional and industrial development will be the focus for the federal government's action in northern Ontario?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have already said this. If the hon. member will go back to page 18, he will also see I said that industries involved in the processing of the vast quantities of wood resources in this region are capable of expansion and also that there was considerable potential-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt on a supplementary and then go to the hon. member for Joliette.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement just made by the minister that he did relegate northern Ontario residents to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, would the minister assure the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question but rather a debate. The hon. member for Joliette.

[ Translation]



HARBOURS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment. Since the minister is absent, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister.

July 4, 1973
Oral Questions
Since the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources announced yesterday that the provincial government was even more determined than before to build a supertanker port in the province of Quebec, would the Prime Minister still be prepared to discuss and negotiate this possibility with Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, but I did not hear the first part of his question. It seems that a provincial minister has announced that a port will be built. This is new to me; the position of the federal government is that we are discussing this project with provincial authorities. I did not know that they had made a decision on this matter.



TRANSPORT


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the mounting number of tragic summer accidents which result in drownings in the Great Lakes, the Trent Canal, and other waters of Canada. If so, is he prepared to take the necessary steps to halt this appalling loss of life?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to do all that we can.



BILINGUALISM


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, now that the Secretary of State has returned to the House may I, through you, ask him if he has examined the document he tabled recently in the House entitled, "Federal-Provincial Program of Co-operation for the Development of Bilingualism in Education at the Pre-University Levels," and is he satisfied that the money voted by this parliament is in each province being used for bilingual education? If not, what action does he intend to take to rectify this situation?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have read the documents which I tabled. In reply to the second question, the hon. member knows that I am now in the process of a series of discussions with provincial ministers of education on the bilingual development program. The degree of formal accountability varies from province to province. As I have explained to the House and to the hon. member, I am trying to seek a more uniform form of accountability that would be acceptable to members of this House and to people outside it, but I think it would be fair to say that in point of fact the

money is going in support of minority language instruction and second language teaching. The real question in my mind is this: is it going to additions and improvements over what was there before the program was started? On that question I am not assured.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain on a supplementary.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that one area-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member asking a question supplementary to that just asked by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi?


Duncan M. Beattie: It is not supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that one area of the dispute which has prompted the Canadian Airline Flight Attendants Association to seek a conciliation officer to help negotiate a new contract with Air Canada is the question of bilingualism training-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is clearly not
supplementary.


Duncan M. Beattie: -will the minister recommend-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume his seat.



STORAGE OF NATURAL GAS AND PROPANE ON MAGDALEN ISLANDS-MINISTER'S POSITION

Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to put a question to the Minister of the Environment, but in view of his absence, I shall put it to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House what the position of the department is with regard to the storage of natural and propane gas on Magdalen Islands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member had given me notice of his question. I must recognize that is one of the projects submitted, but as far as I know, no decision has yet been taken; I do not know either what stage our negotiations have reached.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps I should address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Now that Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Drijber have
July 4, 1973

returned to Canada after a very trying and painstaking trip to Rhodesia and Zambia to learn at first hand the particulars surrounding the murder of their daughter, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he or the Secretary of State for External Affairs has extended an invitation to Mr. Drijber to meet with the government to discuss the details of this great tragedy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not extended such an invitation, and of course the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Helsinki this week. However, I am sure that if asked by Mr. Drijber he would willingly meet with the gentleman and find out any facts he has, that we are interested in hearing. The minister has previously stated publicly that there are certain aspects of this whole tragedy the explanations for which do not satisfy us, and we would like to hear any new facts which could be brought to the government's attention.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he advise the House if the United States and Canada are any closer to reaching a new air agreement to replace the existing arrangement made in 1966, and specifically could he advise the House if the issue of pre-clearance is any closer to being resolved?
[ Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are still exactly at the same point as when the question was last put to me. The American delegation and its Canadian counterpart are expected to meet on July 16; I may have more to tell the House after that date.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether the Canadian government has agreed to the request by the United States to extend the pre-clearance deadline for American air carriers by two months?
[ Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if we feel that the general negotiations can be successful, we will be quite willing to extend the period agreed upon before putting an end to pre-clearance.



HOUSING


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban
Oral Questions
Affairs. Since the Minister of Finance is under the illusion that Bill C-135 contains a provision for controlling interest rates and, given the importance of interest rates on mortgages, would the minister assure the House that he will present before his colleagues an amendment to that bill that would have the effect of holding down interest rates or, failing that, bring in an amendment to the Bank Act that would achieve the same objective?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hypothesis of the question. It is estimated that Bill C-135 might well add $100 million to residential mortgage capital, which undoubtedly would have a beneficial effect on the residential mortgage business. I would urge the hon. member to urge in turn the members of his party to see that the bill is dealt with and referred to a committee of the House as quickly as possible.


John Edward Broadbent: Just to be perfectly clear as to what the minister is saying in the house, is he telling the House that there is anything in the bill that sets a limit on interest rates for mortgages?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that both the minister and the hon. member would appreciate that they are now discussing, by anticipation, an order of the House.



CITIZENSHIPS


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In light of the fact that in less than two years many thousands of longtime Canadian residents who are British subjects will lose their right to vote, pursuant to the amendments to the Canada Elections Act, will the minister inform the House today, or undertake to do so before the summer recess, what programs and policies, if any, he proposes to make these British subjects aware of their disenfranchisement and, secondly, what steps are being taken to expedite and facilitate the making of applications for Canadian citizenship by these British subjects who wish to so apply?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to Viet Nam and to the question of communications. My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was quoted from Helsinki last night as saying that the two Canadian hos-

July 4, 1973
Oral Questions
tages were on official business, and that the minister's parliamentary assistant in the House yesterday afternoon indicated that they were not on official ICCS business, I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain for the House whether the government really knows what type of business these men were on?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government's position is quite clear, and I should be surprised that the parliamentary secretary would say what the hon. member believes he said, that the two officers were not on duty. Because they were on duty they are entitled to the immunities provided under the Paris agreement. This is the government's position.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my question was not to ask whether or not they were on duty. It was to ask whether or not they were on official ICCS business. I would like to find out from the Prime Minister if the government knows whether they were or not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we know what they were engaged upon. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, answering a question the first day when the matter was raised in this House, said that they were making certain visits. I think the question was asked whether this was to show the flag. He said perhaps the expression was not appropriate but they were on duty in the sense that they were doing things which are performed by members of the ICCS over there as a matter of course. This is the government's position.



RAPESEED-SUGGESTED POSSIBLE INCREASE IN PROCESSING IN CANADA

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious shortage of protein in Canada, could the minister tell this House whether he has had discussions with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in order to facilitate an increase in the processing of rapeseed within Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions on this possibility and the discussions are still going on.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday the minister, I believe, indicated that there might be a statement on motions regarding the protein supply in this country for our mills. I should like to ask whether that

statement will be forthcoming some time today and, if not, when?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I hope later this day.



FOOD PRICES


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the protein shortage that has developed not only in the United States but also in Canada, does the government at this time foresee considerably higher food prices for the foreseeable future, especially this fall?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we do not know if there is a real shortage of protein in Canada but we will know later this day. That is the reason we took action to stop the export of protein from Canada so that we would guarantee a supply to our producers in order that there would not be an even worse price increase in protein than there has been. We hope our actions will stop price increases rather than add to them.

[ Translation]



TRANSPORT


Mr. Giiles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
At nine o'clock this morning two ships collided near Les Escoumins. They were the liner Florence and the tanker St. Spyridon. Can the minister tell us whether he has received a report on the possible risks of and damages caused by oil leaking from the tanker involved?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the accident; we are only just beginning to get more detailed reports, because until now the fog has been so thick that no one could see what was going on. One ship, apparently,-probably the tanker-is badly damaged; I am expecting further reports any time now as to whether it will stay afloat. There do not appear to have been any oil-leaks so far; nevertheless, it is a little too soon to say whether the ship will sink, but there can be no doubt that it is a very serious accident.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since Les Escoumins is the exchange station for St. Lawrence River pilots, can the minister tell us if he has received a reply in this first report to the question as to whether, at the time of the accident, the ships were navigating in accordance with the river piloting regulations?
July 4, 1973


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is all part of the investigation now under way, and as soon as I receive the complete report, I will be able to answer the question.


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


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member for Churchill would exercise just a little more patience as I think I should recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport.
Was his ship near these two vessels at the time of the accident this morning?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, no, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Charles Keith Taylor: My question was for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision with respect to the hunting rights of treaty Indians on reserves and the application of provincial laws to these Indians, can the parliamentary secretary assure the House that this does not represent a dilution of federal responsibility for the legal rights of treaty Indians on reserves?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice and look at the case the hon. member refers to a little more closely. I should like to assure him that the government has often stated its policy on looking after the rights of the Indian people and making sure that they are protected.


Charles Keith Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I would also ask the parliamentary secretary if he would assure the House that this decision in no way invades the rights of treaty Indians living on reserves in so far as their hunting and fishing for food is concerned?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker,
without looking at the details I would not want to comment either way. I will look at the details of this particular case. I can assure the hon. member that I am all for the rights of the Indian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions



EFFECT OF RECENT COURT DECISION ON HUNTING RIGHTS OF TREATY INDIANS-REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION OF APPLICABLE PROVINCIAL LAWS

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary to the parliamentary secretary. In referring this important matter to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, could he also request that the minister examine other provincial laws that might have an effect on treaty Indians living on reserves, in light of the Supreme Court decision?


Len Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can also say that the Minister of Justice is involved in a case like this and I will discuss the matter with him as well.



LUMBER-REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF EXPORTS TO DETERMINE IMPACT ON DOMESTIC PRICE

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Because of the impact of lumber exports to the United States and Japan on domestic lumber prices which has a very substantial effect on the high cost of housing, does the minister intend to review our exports of lumber to those two markets to see what is the impact on domestic prices in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on previous occasions, we have this matter under continuing review. We have received assurances from the lumber trade in Canada that they will provide adequate supplies for Canadian housing needs. Recently I have been informed that there has been a decline in prices of up to 20 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Where?



LUMBER-SUGGESTED IMPOSITION OF CONTROLS- GOVERNMENT POSITION

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. As the question involved is not a question of supply but a question of price and there has been a 40 per cent increase in price in the past year, could the minister assure the House that he will review our export position of lumber to the United States and Japan and perhaps take into consideration some form of controls in order to bring down the domestic price?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have said on previous occasions that I am not prepared to put any export controls on lumber.

July 4, 1973
Oral Questions BROADCASTING



ALL STAR FOOTBALL GAME-REASON FOR COVERAGE ON FRENCH LANGUAGE STATIONS IN TORONTO BUT NOT ENGLISH STATIONS

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications which deals with the Canadian football all star game held in Hamilton on June 27. Can the minister tell the House why this football game was given coverage on the French language stations in Toronto and not on the English language stations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question might very well be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency about something of this nature which happened some days ago, I think it should be considered at the time of the adjournment proceedings.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General but in view of his absence, I will address it to whichever minister is acting on his behalf. In view of the fact that the Solicitor General assured the hon. member for Vancouver South on Wednesday, June 20, that he would investigate the alleged brutality used by certain RCMP officers against a number of seamen aboard the grainship Ceram Sea while the ship was docked in Vancouver and that he would report back to the hon. member, and in view of the fact that two weeks have elapsed, would the minister inform the House whether an inquiry has been conducted by that department? If so, when will the results be released?


Marc Lalonde: I shall have to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



BOARDING OF SHIP MANNED BY CHINESE CREW IN VANCOUVER HARBOUR-REQUEST FOR CO-OPERATION OF OFFICER IN CHARGE OF LOCAL DIVISION

Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In view of the fact that a number of seamen from the Ceram Sea have sworn affidavits attesting to assault causing bodily harm, common assault and illegal seizure of personal property by members of the RCMP and in view of the fact that the local division of the RCMP is refusing to co-operate with the legal counsel for the seamen, would the Solicitor General assure this House that the officer in charge of that detachment will be instructed to make all necessary information available?


Marc Lalonde: I shall look into this matter further, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister indicate whether persons whose property was aquired for the Cedarwood Development, by the province of Ontario, under threat of expropriation will be in a position to take advantage of the capital gains tax and roll over provisions accorded to those who are directly expropriated?
Hon, Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer the hon. member but, as the result of his representations, I have asked for a full report on this. I hope that the hon. member's constituents will get all the benefits of the law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Does the minister have any new information as to whether the CBC will be providing educational films for school boards across Canada? The school trustees association and the school boards have been waiting for well over one year for an answer to this question.


James Hugh Faulkner: No,
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have not an answer, but I will look into this.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He has been asked this question by different members for almost the last three or four months. Has he yet had any firm proposal from the council of maritime premiers on the persistent problems of transportation in Atlantic Canada, and when can he announce what his response is to be to those proposals?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am just as impatient as the hon. gentleman, and I am still waiting for an answer from the premiers.
July 4, 1973

Oral Questions



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As the increase in mortgage rates is restricting the ability of prospective homeowners to own homes, and as the Minister of Finance said on Friday that the interest rate under the Veterans Land Act will remain as it is, a preferred rate, will the minister now consider reviewing the Veterans Land Act and removing the phasing out period of March, 1974, so that 125,000 veterans will at least be able to build homes?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is under review at all times and if any change is anticipated it will be announced in due course.



FINANCE


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance arises from a response he gave a little while ago to the question of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands about the availability of funds under the fisheries, farmers, and small businesses loans acts. Since he said that the process of monitoring the availability of funds for these loans by his department and the Bank of Canada is continuing, may I ask the minister why he has taken the step of increasing substantially the interest rate in order, according to the statement, to increase the availability of funds for these purposes?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the hon. member, with respect, that he may be confusing direct loans made by chartered banks in the ordinary course with loans made under the guaranteed loan programs, such as under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Improvement Loans Act, which loans are guaranteed by the federal government. The interest rates are such, as I said in answer to a question a day or so ago, that they are not attracting funds into those guaranteed programs. The hon. gentleman perhaps is confusing direct loans with the guaranteed loan program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Central Nova and then call orders of the day.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES-POSSIBLE EXEMPTION OF WARDS OF CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES FROM PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether it is his intention to exempt wards-wards of children aid societies, for example-from the benefits of the proposed legislation to do with family allowances, or is this something he does not specifically intend to do?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this subject is covered in the proposed bill that will be introduced in the House next week, and I am afraid my hon. friend will have to wait until the bill is introduced, I hope some time next week.


Mr. Lundrigan:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in the House, I wonder if I could raise a point of order and ask that either he, the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister clear up what is perhaps an unfortunate misunderstanding that is being left, or a misimpression being left, by contradictory statements which have been made. I think it is fairly important that an official position be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that that question was asked earlier during the question period and I do not think that statements which are apparently contradictory to one another and which were made in the House can be raised either by way of a question of privilege or a point of order. The hon. member will recognize that a question attempting to clarify the situation was asked earlier during the question period. Perhaps the matter might be pursued in the next question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the lives of Canadians, and there is a statement on the record that was made yesterday, which I think the parliamentary secretary intends to clear up, wherein he said that we do not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have made my ruling and I must insist on the point. The hon. member cannot bring up a point of order, or suggest something as a point of order, which is not covered by the Standing Orders or precedents of this House. Requesting ministers or parliamentary secretaries to clarify statements which may be contradictory and which may need clarification is not normally done by way of a point of order. Orders of the day.

July 4, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 3, consideration in committee of Bill C-192, to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2)-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. The House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-192, to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2). When the committee rose on Tuesday, July 3, 1973, consideration of subclause (2) of clause 1 on page 5 of the bill had been completed. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of subclause (3) of clause 1 on page 6.
On clause 1-Deduction from corporate tax: manufacturing and processing profits.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we are now dealing with subclause (3), found on page 6. This is the clause that provides for a review procedure by parliament, on the motion of not fewer than 60 members. The hon. member for Edmonton West, in his speech on second reading, was concerned that the review procedure within the rules of the House would not provide for any time limit, or for any closing of the procedure. He suggested that if the motion was signed by 60 members, there was no method within the rules of the House for that motion to be brought before the House and dealt with. It has to be brought before the House within 15 days, but there is no provision in the bill to bring it to any conclusion within a time limit.
Nor was there, in the opinion of the hon. member for Edmonton West, a provision that, although the Minister of Finance forthwith introduced a bill reflecting the substance of any such motion, there would be a time limit within the bill ensuring that such a new piece of legislation brought in by the Minister of Finance would be dealt with by the House within a given limit of time.
Since I want the review procedure to be meaningful I have prepared an amendment which I would ask my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, to introduce for the consideration of the committee. The amendment is to this subclause, and with the consent of the committee I yield the floor to him.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 1 of Bill C-192, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2), be amended by striking out lines 25 to 28 on 'page 6 and substituting therefor the following:
"Finance shall take such steps as are necessary in order that a measure in his name giving effect to the motion may be placed before the House without delay.
Time for	(4) All questions in connection with any motion
deciding	taken up and considered by the House of Commons
questions	pursuant to subsection (3) shall be decided not
later than the end of the third sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered, and any measure required to be placed before the House pursuant to that subsection giving effect to any such motion shall be placed before the House not later than the end of the fifteenth
[Mr. Speaker.)
sitting day next after the day the motion, with or without amendments, is approved by the House, and all questions in connection with any such measure shall be decided not later than the end of the seventh sitting day next after the day the measure is first so placed before the House."


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, what that amendment does is to add these provisions to the review procedure. Paragraph (3) is amended to substitute for the word "forthwith", "to place the bill before the House without delay". The new subparagraph (4) sets out the time limits. In other words, if a motion signed by 60 members is presented, it has to be dealt with within 15 days and then it shall be decided not later than the end of the third sitting day next after the motion is first so taken up and considered. That is the first step. There is a 15 day delay for the motion to be called. Once it is called, it must be dealt with within three days after being called. That, with respect, is what the amendment says.
If the motion were to carry, then the minister has to bring in, within 15 days of the carrying of that motion, a measure reflecting the motion, and the question in connection with any such measure shall be decided not later than the end of the seventh sitting day next after the day the measure is first placed before the House. In other words, there are these delays. This is how it will work.
To repeat, the motion is presented and signed by 60 members. It has to be dealt with within a period of 15 days. Once brought before the House, it has to be concluded within three days.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Without interruption.


John Napier Turner: You can add that if you want. Within three days means within three days. After the motion is passed, if it is passed, within 15 days the Minister of Finance has to bring in a measure reflecting the substance of the motion. Seven days from his bringing that in, the House has to deal with it. That, with respect, is what the amendment says. In other words, it is no longer the open ended proposition about which the hon. member was concerned.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The minister took the floor without being recognized and without the Chair having put the motion. We should proceed in an orderly way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for introducing this amendment at this time. Actually, we may have to feel our way a little to see whether the words in this amendment moved by the President of the Treasury Board actually carry into effect the words and the intent of the Minister of Finance.
Our concern about the proposal contained in the bill was that the motion would be put before the House and then be handled in accordance with the rules. The motion before the House could be considered for one day and, under the rules of the House, transferred to Government Orders. There it could lie in limbo ad infinitum. This was the trouble with the bill. This now overrides the effect of the
July 4, 1973

rules of the House. Once the motion has been tabled and, according to the rules, taken up, the debate must continue without interruption, outside of routine business, for three sitting days and then a decision taken. If the measure carries, the minister must bring in a bill without delay reflecting the intent of the motion. The bill will be immediately taken up the day after it is brought before the House. By the end of seven sitting days, all the stages of the bill shall have been considered, this also without interruption, if necessary.
The purport of the amendment is to make the review procedure more meaningful. Somewhere along the line there may be something that is still uncertain. Having considered the matter, we will have put what we want to the minister in order that the review procedure will be authoritative and meaningful. In so far as procedure is concerned, we have spelled it out. The review procedure, of course, must be based upon meaningful evidence. Therefore, the monitoring process that the minister described to the Leader of the Opposition and other members last night can stand even more suggestions. Some of my colleagues may have some to make this afternoon in that regard.
I want to be quite clear that under this tax provision, the review procedure is not a once and for all shot. If the government obtains other information from its monitoring or the opposition comes to the conclusion there must be a modification of this tax, any time after April 1, 1974 the necessary action may be taken. We will just have to see how this gets along. It may be that all of us will be surprised. The government may have grossly overestimated the effect of the inducement it has given to the manufacturing and processing sector of industry.
It is not a case that they will be able to quantify any payments out, because no payments are being made. The tax is being reduced, and the tax, of course, will be paid only some time in 1974. It is true there will be some periodic reporting by ceftain corporations but not by all of them. Many of the final tax returns of these companies will not come in until after April 1, 1974, and to this extent the information will not be available for the interim report. Certainly, though, we would hope that information will flow through more readily and that the Minister of Finance will organize his analysts so that they are in better shape than those of the Auditor General, who has an equally difficult monitoring task in many ways but who is unable to accomplish it for other reasons.
I hope the committee will agree to accept this amendment. We on this side are certainly prepared to do so. We feel that 60 is about the right number; it amounts to 25 per cent of the membership of this House, and a decision is within the control of the opposition. This is why we would accept the number 60, and we are not prepared to pay a numbers game in that connection.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the concluding words of the hon. member for Edmonton West, I might say that another amendment will be moved later by my hon. friend from Yorkton-Mel-ville. We feel that this proposed procedure should be one
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
guaranteed to come into effect, and therefore we shall be moving that the requirement be not 60 members but 25.
However, I rise at this point to ask a question or two with regard to the amendment proposed by the President of the Treasury Board. I thought the hon. member for Edmonton West would pick up these points, but he did not. He seems to be under the impression that this amendment guarantees three days of debate on the motion put down by 25 or 60 members. I suggest it does no such thing.
I have vivid memories of the days when debate in this House, after a sentence or two, got adjourned on the motion of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe.


An hon. Member:: Debate "without interruption".


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says "without interruption", but the amendment does not say so. The words of the hon. member or the words of the minister will not apply once the law has been passed. All this says is that a decision shall be taken not later than the end of the third sitting day after the motion is first taken up and considered. This provision, if put into effect, would be met by a motion being made one day and the debate thereon being adjourned half an hour later. Then, at the end of the third sitting day next thereafter it could be called again, and the law would have been kept. The same is true of the seven days applied to the debate on the measure itself.
To say this is not to doubt the good word or the intention of the Minister of Finance or of the hon. member for Edmonton West, but we all know that in his place we are governed by what the law says. This provision does not state that the debate will be uninterrupted for the three days or the seven days, and I suggest if this gimmick is to be meaningful the point should be covered both with respect to the three days and the seven days, though I am not sure whether it is three and seven or four and eight. After all, if you start something on one day and make a decision at the end of the third day next, after that day-


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no objection to the hon. member saying no, but I suggest the wording is less than clear.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the point made by the opposition, the concern here is to ensure that the motion by 60 members, once taken up, should be dealt with within a time limit and that thereafter the minister of finance of the day would be obliged, within a time limit, to bring in a bill reflecting the substance of that motion. Then the bill itself would have to be dealt with within a time limit. Those time limits have been spelled out. It is true there is no provision for uninterrupted debate, but at least it is a closed end operation. Surely one cannot conceive of a motion of this importance not being dealt with when there is a three-day outside limit for a decision on the one hand, and a seven-day limit for decision on the other.


An hon. Member:: Uninterrupted debate. That was the point. Uninterrupted debate.

July 4, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)


John Napier Turner: Well, I have made the point of introducing a closed time limit. I would have no objection to providing for uninterrupted debate, but surely that would introduce a rigidity into the procedure of the House which hon. members might wish to avoid. But I am open on the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the minister has conceded the point I was making, namely, that this proposal does not guarantee uninterrupted debate for three days. All this guarantees is that, the motion having been made, a decision has to be reached at the end of the third day next thereafter. But in between, the government could call all sorts of other items for debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Right from the very outset the minister said clearly, to my thinking, that there would be three days of debate and that there would not be a lot of other material thrown in, apart from routine proceedings. This is what I said earlier this afternoon, and the minister agreed. There should be a maximum of three days of debate on the motion and a maximum of seven days of debate on the legislation without the interruption of other business. It would be quite easy to insert words to that effect and if the minister is prepared to put in the words "without interruption" after "considered", I would be quite prepared to follow such a course.


John Napier Turner: Why don't we put it this way? I believe we have unanimous consent to play around with these words, and I might just read them. I know it is irregular, Mr. Chairman, but I wonder if the Chair would bear with us.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair to allow hon. members to go into conference across the floor. This could be done easily between the minister and both hon. members who have raised this point while the debate in the committee proceeds.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are in committee of the whole. We can get up and down as we see fit as long as only one has the floor.


John Napier Turner: Suppose we were to try this. I am looking now at the amendment, at the new paragraph (4).
All questions in connection with any motion taken up and considered by the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (3) shall be debated without interruption and decided not later than-
Is that all right? And if the hon. member would turn to the fourth line from the bottom-
Such measures shall be debated continuously and decided not later-
Or else-
-shall be debated without interruption and shall be decided not later-


Mr. MacEachen:: Must we use three days on it?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion that a correction or amendment should be made to the amendment before the committee at

this time. Is it agreed that it be incorporated within the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: In order to clear the decks in readiness for whatever the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville wants to do, perhaps we could deal with this amendment as it now reads, as amended, from the floor. Then we could proceed to further discussion.


Gérald Laniel: Maybe the best way would be to make a decision on the amendment and then we could call upon the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. Shall the amendment as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my rising is to move an amendment which would effectively reduce the number of members required to call for a reassessment of this corporate tax bill next year from 60 to 25. I do this for a number of reasons.
First of all, on page 6 of the bill before us, sub-clause (3) stipulates that 60 members can sign a petition asking that the measure be either discontinued next year or that the reduction be reduced by any amount that parliament would like.
The purpose of the amendment is that in the current legislation it stipulates that 60 members must make that petition or request, and what we want to do in this party is reduce that number to 25 because we do not have confidence that the Conservative party will ask for such a review next year. We do not feel that party will have the intestinal fortitude to go ahead and ask that this measure be reviewed. If the number is reduced to 25 we are sure there will be a review of this corporate tax legislation next year.
The second reason we would like to move this amendment and have it carried by the House is that this party has no confidence in the review procedure the minister is establishing within his own department. We think the members of this House, representing the people of Canada, should make the decision about this corporate tax bill, since we could possibly make it immediately after the last day of March next year.
As I say, we in this party have no confidence in the review procedure because essentially that procedure is a sop to the Conservative party, a procedure by which bureaucrats in the Department of Finance are going to send out questionnaires and carry out surveys to determine whether the corporate tax cut is effective. I do not think this review procedure will have any validity at all.
The people who are handing out the tax cut will be interviewing and surveying those benefiting from it, and following those interviews and surveys the same people will make a decision as to whether this bill is effective. I should like to refer to Hansard of yesterday at page 5259 where a statement by the Minister of Finance appears. I want to quote a few sentences of the minister's answer to
July 4, 1973

questions by the opposition as to how the government will review and assess these corporate tax measures and the effect they will have on our economy. He said:
The following activities will be undertaken in making this assessment. First, we will be looking for the direct impact of the measures. The direct impact that the measures have had on existing companies or are likely to have will be examined by means of a questionnaire survey and interviews. Questionnaires will be sent to about 1,000 manufacturers and processing corporations representing several times as many establishments. It will include representation from all industrial segments, all regions of the country and virtually all sizes of corporations. This mailing will include all the largest firms in the country as well as a number of smaller companies.
Here we are sending out a questionnaire to the companies and corporations which are benefiting from the corporate tax cut from 49 per cent to 40 per cent. I would ask what kind of an assessment this will be. Will these companies receiving the benefits of this bill actually say to the Minister of Finance or the government that this bill is not good? Will they in all sincerity cut off the hand that feeds them? Perhaps this is like the skunk in the henhouse. This review procedure would be like asking the skunk. I am sure he would be in favour, but if you asked the chickens and the farmer you would get a totally different interpretation of the activity.
What we are trying to do through this amendment is in essence to survey the people of Canada. We want to ask the members of parliament to judge this activity next year, as soon as we can possibly make that judgment. I think the people of Canada, through their representatives, rather than a few bureaucrats in the Department of Finance, should be making this decision.
The minister then went on to state:
Interviews will be held with the 200 largest firms and about 25 medium and 25 small manufacturing and processing companies.
In addition to the questionnaire these people will interview some of the corporations about the effect of the corporation tax cuts and their impact on the economy. Then the minister states, and this is very interesting:
We anticipate that the companies' response to the new tax measures will be motivated in part by their expectation of increased cash flows-
Certainly these companies will be motivated in part by increased cash flows. They have had a tremendous year, a very profitable one so far, with an increase in the first three months of 53 per cent over the first three months last year, before taxes. Naturally these companies will be interested in maximizing their profits.
The Minister of Finance went on to say:
-but more importantly by a fundamental policy improvement designed to improve the investment climate in this country.
What guarantee do we have that the corporations will use this extra capital they will gain as a result of this tax cut to improve investment in new manufacturing and processing, creating more jobs in this country? I suggest there is absolutely no guarantee that these companies will use these funds for that purpose. They may elect to retain these extra earnings for some other purpose. They may decide to use them to modernize their plants by putting in new equipment which, indeed, in some cases may throw men out of work, creating fewer jobs rather than more. These corporations may decide to use these funds to pay
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
greater dividends to shareholders instead of investing in new manufacturing and processing in this country.
The minister has told the House that 60 per cent of the firms which will benefit from corporate tax cuts are foreign firms. Who is to say that some of the extra funds available to these companies will not actually end up in the hands of shareholders outside Canada? These companies may elect to send a greater portion of their profits to parent companies in the United States, or to pay out greater dividends to foreign shareholders. Again we have no guarantee in this legislation that these tax cuts will actually result in greater investment in this country and greater job creation here.
In addition, even if there were to be greater investment I do not think it would necessarily follow that if you have greater profits you will have greater investment: this has not been the fact in recent years. Last night I presented some statistics to the committee compiled by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They were compiled very recently and they relate to investment patterns in manufacturing and processing in this country. I do not mind repeating these statistics.
While manufacturing and processing corporations increased their profits in the last two years, investment in new manufacturing and processing in Canada actually declined. In 1970, for example, when corporation profits were considered to be lower than usual we found there was $3,223 million invested in new manufacturing and processing in Canada. In 1971 when corporation profits in Canada increased, if we follow the logic of the Liberal and Conservative policy investment should have increased, but it did not. Instead investment went down to $2,994 million. In 1972 profits again went up, but investment in new manufacturing and processing went down to $2,956 million.
To my mind and in the opinion of members of this party there is no guarantee that corporations will use the extra funds available for new investment in this country and for the creation of new jobs. I should like to hear some member of the Liberal or Conservative party prove that suggestion, or indicate some conclusive way to determine where these funds are actually going. The review procedure to be established by the government is a farce. The people who are drafting the policy will carry out a survey of those benefiting from it, and the conclusion of such a review procedure is a foregone conclusion.
I think this survey would be a whitewash job. That is why those of us in this party who are dedicated to the defeat of this bill want to try to keep control of the review of the bill as much as possible in the hands of this party or this Parliament, so that the people of Canada will be guaranteed that there will be a review of this bill.
I shall not repeat many of the things we have said in the past. We all know of the concern of our party. Profits have gone up. We know about the Shultz proposals in the United States. The minister states that they are just proposals, but we believe there is a strong possibility that some of them may come into effect. I suggest that the House should consider the amendment reducing the number of members from 60 to 25 in order to have an

July 4, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
automatic reassessment and review of the bill before us. The reason for this is not just because the review procedure is inadequate but because we believe the Conservative party may in the end chicken out. If that happens we want this access to possible control so that there will be a review of this bill because the members of this party demand the review.
If we do not do it ourselves, the members of the Conservative party may not insist upon the review and we would not have one at all. As a matter of fact, there is probably a conflict of interest in expecting the Conservative party to request a rescinding of this legislation, because it would be like cutting off the hand that feeds it. I am sure members of the Conservative party want to complain a little, but do not want to do anything about it.
I appeal to all members of this House, members of the Conservative party, the Liberal party and the Social Credit party, to support our amendment. Many members have expressed concern about the effect of this bill. Many of them have expressed concern about the review procedure. If they really mean what they say I hope they will support our amendment to reduce the number of members of parliament required to have this review from 60 to 25. Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendment. I move:
That clause 1 of Bill C-192 be amended by deleting the word "sixty" from line 4 on page 6, and by substituting therefor the word "twenty-five".


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing now with the question of numbers. I want to remind the committee at the outset that there is no restriction on the right of the opposition to move these amendments at any time in or outside this legislation, because the debate could take place at almost any time; for instance, on an opposition motion. I think in terms of parliamentary procedure that should be clear.
What we are talking about here is quite an important procedure of a kind that would permit private members, as distinct from members of the government, to initiate action in respect of a matter involving taxation. It is quite a fundamental impingement on the traditional parliamentary authority of the Crown. Because of the importance of this departure and the traditional practice in respect of handling taxation matters in parliament, we do not believe the mechanism should be brought into play without the support of a significant number of members.
While there is nothing magic about the number 60, we propose that the minimum number required should be a significant proportion, about one-quarter of the members of the House. For that reason we abide by the text.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to prolong this debate unduly. I wish to point out to the minister that once you change a pretty fundamental procedure of this House, namely have the government bring in legislation and control the legislation, and say that a certain number of members may call for a review as the minister has outlined in his bill, it seems to me it is a pretty foolish argument to say they want the opposition to have the right to call for a debate on this proposal but that it must involve 60 members rather than 25 or 30 members. It seems to me that the minister is really saying that he is

in a tight spot, that he had made a commitment to his party that the government would bring in this legislation and that the official opposition had announced it would oppose this bill. The vote of the official opposition and the NDP would have defeated the government, so therefore the minister decided that he must find some way to get the official opposition off the hook. The official opposition has said it would support this legislation if it were not permanent. Now, of course, everybody knows that no legislation, tax legislation or any other kind, is permanent. It is only the law so long as parliament does not change it. However, the official opposition has to find a way to be able to support this bill without seeming to go back on its threat that it would vote against it. The minister came up with a very very shrewd proposal. The hon. member for Hamilton West had been involved in meaningful negotiation. The minister found a way to get the official opposition to vote for the bill.
When this measure was first proposed before the election we stated that we would oppose it because it would give concessions to the business community which did not need and did not deserve them. We stated after the election that we would oppose the bill, and we are doing so now. What the minister is saying in this proposal is that if the official opposition wishes to open up the question for debate next spring, 60 of its members out of some 107 members may sign the request and have a review. We have no confidence that the official opposition will do so next spring or at any other time.
The Financial Times ran a survey some weeks ago in respect of how the business community felt about this, and when its report showed that the business community had really turned against the Conservative party I knew the Conservative party would look for a way to be able to vote for this bill. They have found it. I say we simply have no confidence-


John Napier Turner: You have no confidence that you will ever have 60 members.


David Orlikow: The Minister of Finance says we have no confidence that we will have 60 members. If the Minister of Finance can tell me when the next election will be held, then we can talk about which party will have how many members. Also, if he wishes, I will send him over Friday's issue of the Winnipeg Free Press, and he can look at the provincial election results in the rural constituencies of Manitoba and see the very small vote that the Liberal party got there. From that he can determine what will happen to the Liberal party in the next federal election. He ought not to be so self-confident.
Let me return to the point I am trying to make. I do not believe that the Conservative party next spring will call for a review of this legislation because it supports the basic proposal that corporation income tax be reduced from 49 per cent to 40 per cent as set out in this bill. The leader of my party suggests that the only change the Conservatives would make would be to have the 40 per cent tax rate apply to all corporations. We would oppose that, just as we oppose the bill now.
July 4, 1973

That being the case, and because we have always opposed this bill and will continue to oppose it, we move this amendment. We know that we will call for a review. We want to be certain that there will be a review and a public debate, and we do not intend to leave the possibility of having that public debate up to the decision of the Conservative party which, in our opinion, will not call for a review of the legislation. In fact I believe that the Conservative party, which has said it has reservations about the bill, should support our amendment.


Mr. Alexander:: I am never too impressed by the meaningless rhetoric of the hon. members to my left. I know that the NDP have gone around the country time and time again expressing objection to this bill in no uncertain terms. Keeping that in mind, how can the hon. member be consistent in stating they are going to vote against the bill, and don't want it, and don't like it, but at the same time they are prepared to move an amendment that goes to the very heart of the bill? This is their usual inconsistency and, if I may use the expression, usual hypocrisy. Can the hon. member clear that up for me?


David Orlikow: There is a very simple answer to that. We are opposed to the bill and that is why we will vote against it. But we know that the bill will pass. Knowing that, we want the opportunity next April to have the bill debated again. We hope, when that time comes, that the Conservative party will get over its hesitancy. We doubt it, but we want to give the Conservatives another opportunity to vote with us to eliminate this corporate tax rip-off which we think is unfair and unjustified. We do not want it now, and we want to get rid of it at the earliest opportunity.


Gerald William Baldwin: Does not the hon. member think he is being quite unfair to the Minister of Finance and his other friends opposite, having in mind that it was his party and the government party between them which took about four or five months to cook up the scheme which has resulted in the present arrangement? Now he is turning around and objecting to it. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, let me say to the hon. member for Peace River that I have sat here since the election and have been taunted by his colleagues about being afraid to precipitate an election. We made it clear from the day after the election that this was a bill which we would not support. It is now clear to the hon. member for Peace River and to his fellow Conservatives that if they really want to defeat the government this is the issue on which they can do it. They can still defeat the government on this issue and precipitate an election, which they so loudly claim that they want. Let them vote with us and we will have the election that they say they want.
[ Translation]


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Chairman, at this time, in view of the seriousness and the importance of the bill before us, I would like to make my contribution. I remarked on the earlier reply of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that at least 60 members should be required to amend clause 125(1). He said that he had chosen the number 60 because that was about one quarter of the total number of members.
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
I think that the hon. Minister of Finance and the government should know that, at the present time, there are four parties in the House: the Liberal party, the Progressive Conservative party, the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party of Canada. Since a political party is recognized in the House when it has 12 members, I believe that it is my duty to propose a sub-amendment to the amendment proposed by the New Democrats. It is not that I lack confidence in the government, nor is it that I lack confidence in the Progressive Conservatives or the New Democrats, it is that I believe the time has come for the government to prove that it stands for democracy, and that it agrees to give a political party the right to propose an amendment to a bill as important as the one before us, thus allowing a political party to reintroduce the matter for discussion after 1974.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette):
That in subclause 1(3) on page 6 of Bill C-192, the word "sixty" in the fourth line be replaced by the word "fifteen", to read as follows: Where, at any time after March 31, 1974, a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, signed by not less than fifteen members of the House-


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, while the text of the proposed subamendment is being carried to the table I am just wondering if it is the intention of the hon. member for Joliette to move a further subamendment that the number be reduced to one.
[ Transla tion]


Gérald Laniel: Order.


Léonel Beaudoin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Richmond on a point of order.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Chairman, I was expecting that one from the Progressive Conservatives and it is ridiculous.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I must point out to the hon. member for Richmond that his amendment is not an amendment to the amendment now under consideration, but a separate one. Now the best procedure to follow would be to put the question and let the committee deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) aimed at reducing the number to 25. Once the matter settled by the committee and only then, the Chair will be in a position to put to the committee the amendment moved by the hon. member for Richmond. Otherwise, two questions would be submitted to our consideration and such is not the normal procedure in the House or in the committee.

Amendment (Mr. Nystrom) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 67.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Richmond.
Amendment (Mr. Beaudoin) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays,
66.

July 4, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall I report the bill?
Bill reported.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared for third reading to be called now, but as everyone realizes we are going to ask for a recorded vote.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said bill will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the said bill will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[The Deputy Chairma.]
July 4, 1973


STATUTE LAW RELATING TO INCOME TAX (No. 3)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 18, 1973, consideration in committee of Bill C-193, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 3),-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 1.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make a long speech. What I want to do is give notice of two amendments I should like to propose, with the consent of the committee, during the process of dealing with this bill. What I suggest is that I give an explanation of what I have in mind, and then table a copy of the proposed amendments and allow them to be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings in order that members of the committee will have an opportunity of looking at them overnight, and we can perhaps deal with them tomorrow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We may get through it.


John Napier Turner: Yes, we may.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just give us notice of them. Give us copies and then wait until you see how far we get.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, let me deal with the first one first. I have recently received information from my colleague, the Minister of Justice in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, concerning the possible delay in delivery of grain to the Canadian Wheat Board because of a peculiar interaction of the Canada Grain Act and the reporting of income on the cash basis under the Income Tax Act.
Under the Canada Grain Act farmers receive a cash purchase ticket which entitles the holder to cash at the time of receipt. As a result, the amount is included in income for tax purposes at that time. Even if the regulations under the Canada Grain Act were changed to provide for a deferral of the cash being received at the option of the farmer, the amount would still be treated as income at the time of delivery for income tax purposes.
I have been informed that this treatment will tend to encourage farmers to delay delivery of their grain near the end of their taxation year in years when there are good crops. This practice is to the detriment of the Canadian Wheat Board requirements and adversely affects the board's ability to meet its delivery commitments.
It is proposed to amend Section 76 of the Income Tax Act so that a farmer on the cash basis who delivers grain to the Canadian Wheat Board, and elects to defer receipt of the cash by taking a deferred payment purchase ticket, will only include the sale price in income when the cash is actually received.
In other words, that is an election open to the farmer. He can elect or not elect. I believe this amendment will reflect a more accurate "cash" method of reporting of income for grain producers and will place them in a more comparable position with other types of farming. This amendment
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
provides that where a taxpayer delivers grain to a primary elevator and receives a cash purchase ticket, but elects to receive payment for the delivery in the immediate subsequent taxation year, notwithstanding subsection 76(1) the amount of the sale will be included in income in the taxation year immediately following the taxation year in which the grain was delivered. The expressions "cash purchase ticket", "operator of an elevator" and "primary elevator" used in this section are defined in the Canada Grain Act and the expression "grain" has the meaning assigned by the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether instead of reading the amendment I might just table it and ask that it be included in an appendix to Votes and Proceedings. If we make progress and get down to it I could introduce it in appropriate form at an appropriate stage. I am prepared to table copies in English and French of the proposed amendment to be circulated to members of the committee so that they will have time to digest it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. As to the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance I might say it would not be proper for us to follow the method suggested by the hon. member in committee. What can be done is when the committee rises later today it could then be suggested and agreed to that the various suggested amendments be printed in Votes and Proceedings so that members would have notice of them. I would ask the minister, if we reach the specific clauses he proposes to amend, that he give the Chair warning so that we do not inadvertently fall into some horrible trap. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: The second notice I should like to give the committee is notice of introduction of an amendment to the Income Tax Application Rules which will enable the recovery of any amounts with respect to the disposition of government rights after 1971 up to the fair market value of such rights as at December 31, 1971. I have received representations from my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. I also met with my colleague the chairman of the agriculture committee of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Bruce. The minister, the hon. member for Bruce and myself met with executives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Subsequent to the passage of Bill C-170 which enabled the recovery of the cost of government rights owned on December 31, 1971 to be free from tax upon disposition, I have received representations requesting that consideration be given to an amendment which will enable the recovery of the fair market value as at December 31, 1971 of such rights owned on that date, to be free of income tax upon disposition. I have carefully considered the points in question and the general transitional provisions that apply to such rights and am now prepared to move the necessary amendment.
This amendment will ensure that upon the disposition of a government right owned on December 31, 1971 a taxpayer will be subject to tax only if the proceeds are in excess of the greater of the original cost of the right or its fair market value on December 31, 1971. I shall table and distribute this amendment in the same way.
5304

July 4, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there is a procedural problem here the minister may not have thought of. If these amendments are not included in the ways and means motion then I think we will have to take the necessary steps to crank up the works from the beginning and introduce the appropriate ways and means motion, as the minister is capable of doing. Because there is nothing in this act we can hook on to.


John Napier Turner: We can crank up the necessary motion if we have the unanimous consent.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I suppose the Chair should enter the caveat that once notice has been given by printing it in Votes and Proceedings it leaves it open for the Chair or hon. members to question the validity of what is attempted to be done.


John Napier Turner: We have the ways and means resolutions here. Why do we not table those as well? We will give notice and I think by unanimous consent at the appropriate stage we can work them in. I will take the point of giving notice officially now of the amendments to the ways and means resolution sufficiently broad to cover the two amendments I have been talking about.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to underline the caveat I think Your Honour made from the Chair. I am not rising to suggest we are opposed to these amendments, but a quick look which I have given to them indicates that in both cases they propose to amend sections of the act which are not being amended by this bill. In other words, they represent new material. Ways can be found to deal with them, but of course if the minister has the right to introduce new material then other members should have the right to propose other items of new material.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am not rising on the point of order which has been raised but I should like to say a few words on clause 1 of the bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The discussion is on clause 1 of the bill and the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, my contribution at this point is to ask the minister whether he could tell us why he is repealing this particular subsection which applies to some sort of credit for foreign state income taxes.


John Napier Turner: What we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, is repealing section 8, subsection (9), of the Income Tax Act and making that repeal applicable to the 1973 and subsequent taxation years. What subsection (9) of section 8 did was permit a deduction in computing employment income for income or profit taxes paid to a political subdivision of a foreign country, that is to say, paid to the state of Maine, or the State of Victoria in Australia, for instance. The United States state income tax as opposed to federal income tax was deductible in determining the income of an individual employed in the United States. This was applicable in the case of a Canadi-

an who went across the border to Michigan, Maine or a number of other places.
As a result of the change, such taxes will, from 1973, qualify for the more generous relief under the foreign tax credit provisions in section 126 of the act. The amendment is in response to representations received from individuals who live near the border and are employed in the United States.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear in the discussion on the point of order that the minister would crank up a resolution because so often when we deal with one of these omnibus bills to amend the Income Tax Act dealing with a hodge-podge of different sections very often an opportunity is not open to a private member of the House to move what may be considered to be an unnecessary additional amendment to a section of the act which is not actually before the committee.
It is in that connection that I should like to propose to the minister that he take a serious look at this point, since he intends to place some new material in the act. I refer to something which I consider to have been a very serious omission of rather minor phraseology in an amendment to the Income Tax Act with respect to the deductibility of certain types of expenses. I am not quite sure whether the Minister of Finance is sufficiently aware of the fact that this is a matter I have been pursuing ever since I came to this House.
When we had what was referred to, rather facetiously in my view, as the tax reform bill, I thought that at last the objective, which in equity should be recognized, had in fact been recognized. But that was not the case in the end result. I may say I have taken pains by correspondence to verify the interpretation which has been placed on the wording of the act. This is borne out by a communication to my office on the subject.
I am referring to the question of deductible expenses incurred in the course of earning a living by workers in what the present law calls isolated sites. This is something entirely separate and apart from the $150 deduction which was put into the act and which has general application. The law as it now stands allows workers in isolated sites, construction workers, loggers, miners, people in those and other categories, if they happen to be in that situation-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat. The Chair finds itself in some difficulty because the discussion on this type of bill should really be confined to the specific clauses rather than having a general discussion on clause 1. I realize the difficulty that the hon. member is in because he feels that perhaps the minister is reaching beyond the clauses that are set forth in the bill in order to bring in new material, and he himself wishes to bring in new material. But I do not think he should find that remedy here.
I am trying to think where he could find it, and since I have raised the problem from the Chair perhaps I might be helped by hon. members before making a ruling. I do not want to be unjust to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but I do not think we can have a wide open discussion on
July 4, 1973

clause 1 on this type of bill. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be of assistance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, you underline the point that I raised when I was on my feet a few moments ago, namely that if the minister finds it possible to introduce new material then the rest of us should be able to add to it as well.
May I suggest that the clauses that deal with the exemption levels might bear some relationship to a request for further exemptions. For example, when we get over to clause 11 there are a series of subclauses that deal with the exemption levels for various taxpayers. In effect the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is debating the desirability of additional exemptions for certain classes of taxpayers. I can see Your Honour's point that a relationship to clause 1 hardly exists at all, but even if it is remote there is a relationship to clause 11. Perhaps if you do not wish the hon. member to continue at this point you will permit him to do so when we reach clause 11, or some other similar clause.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would be very patient with the Chair I think this is the course that I would suggest. I also remind the committee that although we have agreed on a course of procedure in which we received notice of amendments by the Minister of Finance, this does not necessarily mean that tomorrow the Chair will be able to receive those amendments. There may be very substantial questions raised at that time.
It has always been the general practice that we do not anticipate trouble until it faces us very squarely. Accordingly I would ask the hon. member for Comox-Alberni not to anticipate any possible success on the minister's part with his proposed amendments until they come before the House tomorrow for consideration, and I would ask him if he would not mind deferring his speech on the deductions until we reach clause 11, as his colleague has suggested.


Mr. Peters:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in this instance the minister is seeking to broaden the ways and means resolution to take certain matters into consideration. That will require notice, and he said he would ask for unanimous consent. In giving notice to the Chair I am sure he is indicating that that is the course he wishes to follow. If that is so then it would seem to me that if someone wishes to introduce another item it will hinge on whether or not the minister is willing to accept it in his proposed changes in the ways and means resolution.
In a sense I am prejudging what he is going to do and what he is not going to do, and you, Mr. Chairman, have to prejudge whether to allow some discussion, with some laxity, on the first clause of the bill. I suggest that there are other clauses in the bill which are more closely related to the matter of personal exemptions, but if you are going to allow the minister to introduce amendments I think some co-operation will be sought, and I suggest that the Chair should be co-operative in allowing some laxity at this stage. This is not a threat; it is just a suggestion. If we are being asked for co-operation, maybe we should be a little lax with regard to other aspects.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the Chair made a perfectly reasonable suggestion to the committee and I am sorry it
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
does not meet with the favour of all members. Obviously what has happened is that the minister has given notice of something that may or may not turn out to be in order. There will be no ruling on that particular point until tomorrow. I said earlier, and I say again, that I do not want to be unfair to members in permitting a minister to attempt to do something that a member himself is not allowed to do.
I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will have his remedy when clause 11 comes along for consideration. I hope hon. members will help the Chair in what might be a difficult situation. I do not think it has to be a difficult situation. This is not the type of clause 1 where general discussion ordinarily is permitted by the Chair.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have a great desire to be co-operative. My desire to seek your indulgence and that of the committee at this point is based on the fact that the minister indicated he was giving consideration to an amending resolution. For practical reasons I hope to make my suggestion at this point for the minister's consideration. If I follow the suggestion that has been made and defer my remarks until we get to clause 11 of the bill, the point will have passed, and presumably the amended resolution will have been accepted. Then for all practical purposes I would have lost the opportunity to deal with this matter very briefly before the minister introduced his amendment. I would ask Your Honour's indulgence in allowing me to complete making the point that I hoped to be able to make.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Since the hon. member indicates it deals with eligibility for deductions, the Chair will accede to his request.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the committee. The point I was trying to make was that the present law allows workers in effect to benefit from a deduction of expenses in isolated sites-I will not spell out all the details because I am sure the minister knows what I am talking about-if the employer pays those expenses in addition to the nominal wage received by the employee. However, if, as is the practice in some industries, those amounts have to be paid out of a gross wage by the employee under identical working conditions, he is not eligible for the deduction of such expenses as travel and the cost of board away from home in an isolated site if he maintains a self-contained domestic establishment elsewhere.
This leaves out a large percentage of the workers who work in isolated sites. It certainly leaves out the loggers who work in my constituency because of a practice that has developed in the industry. In all fairness, having gone as far as the matter was taken in the last act, it seems to me that the minister ought to take this opportunity to deal with this obvious inequity in the application of the act as it stands. I hope that when he is cranking up his resolution, he will have in mind these few remarks.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to debate but to ask the minister a question. Is the minister considering the amendment suggested by farm organizations and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, that the inventory
5306

July 4, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
of. a spouse whose husband or wife was a farmer who had died should be averaged out over several years? I know some of the farm groups asked for an amendment along this line.


John Napier Turner: We are still considering it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, may we get an explanation from the minister. There is no real effective change in the law but they have danced around with the words, perhaps for greater clarity. No doubt the minister has an explanatory note. I have looked at it and there is nothing in principle that is different.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, subparagraph 18(5) to which this first subclause relates defines the expression "outstanding debts to specified non-residents" for the purpose of the provision of the thin capitalization rules; that is to say, that part of a debt on which interest is disallowed. It includes loans extended directly from a foreign parent company to a Canadian subsidiary. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the rules are not bent to arrange loans to a company abroad which is related to a Canadian company, but does not own any of its shares.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But that is the same as subsection 18(5)?


John Napier Turner: That is the intent but there were ways around it by using another related company to circumvent it. This is to get at that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of cancellations here repealing a subsection of the act and then it is stated that this has effect in the 1973 taxation year. So that in effect the subclause has been operative for only the one year. Would the minister explain that?


John Napier Turner: These particular
repeals relate to the fact that we are substituting a credit for a deduction-broadening the provisions to be made available to the taxpayer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is after foreign corporations?


John Napier Turner: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Allowance for oil or gas well, mine or timber limit.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister is extending the allowance for oil or gas well mineral resources or timber limit and is adding the processing, to the prime metal stage or its equivalent, of ore from a mineral resource. This is subsections 65(1) and (2).

Since this is covered by regulation would the minister advise what the intention is with regard to the regulations? I was having some difficulty, because when one checks the act one has to go down to the very bottom, where it says "as allowed by regulation," and therefore I want to know what it is at the present time. Also what does the minister anticipate is going to be the benefit to the particular class of taxpayer under this additional limit?


John Napier Turner: This amendment, as the hon. gentleman knows very well in the part of the country from which he comes, provides for the special 3314 deduction from income which will be available to the processors of mineral ores in the case where the processor was not the operator of the resource; in other words, where he was processing somebody else's ore. That is the purpose of the amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it the taxpayer, the owner of the ore, under these circumstances?


John Napier Turner: Not necessarily. It might be done by way of custom processing situation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The allowance is to whom-the tax paying owner of the mineral ore? Certainly not as a custom processor.


John Napier Turner: A custom processor who purchases somebody else's mineral oil becomes the owner of the mineral oil at the time of processing.
[ Translation]


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the hon. minister concerning clause 6, namely, whether it applies solely to companies which have oil or gas wells, or mines, or whether it also applies to the shareholders of the companies concerned.


John Napier Turner: It applies only to companies, and not to shareholders.


Gérard Laprise: I have a supplementary question.
With regard to exploration for oil or natural gas deposits, in Quebec, for example, there is a Crown corporation called SOQUIP which is affiliated to certain private companies to conduct exploration for oil or gas deposits. If explorations should meet with success, would this Crown corporation be able to profit from this?


John Napier Turner: If the company in question pays taxes, yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Ritchie:: I should like the minister to explain in subsection 65(1) (b) on page 4 the words "the Governor in Council may prescribe the formula".


John Napier Turner: The power of the Governor in Council to prescribe depletion allowances by regulation is not changed. This is just adding to the eligibility tor the allowance. It deals with the custom proces-
July 4, 1973

sor, someone processing somebody else's product. That is not a new provision, but is inherited from the old law.


William Gordon Ritchie: I presume that there may be some difference of opinion between the government and the taxpayer as to the method of computing this formula. Is this provision inserted to ensure that the government has the right to decide the formula?


John Napier Turner: That is right. Somebody has to decide. What happens is that the industry has the right to make representations to the minister at any time as to whether any type of depletion or depreciation regulation is applicable, makes sense or is working. I have dealt with this problem, for instance, when dealing with the basic herd. It is dealt with in the same way.


William Gordon Ritchie: Is this to be applied to industry as a whole, or to each specific taxpayer?


John Napier Turner: To industry as a whole.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Now we come to the motion suggested by the Minister of Finance which is separate, I gather, from the notices of motion that have been presented by him and which will be considered later, when the committee rises. This would become clause 6(1) (i) and deals with cash purchase tickets issued to taxpayers in respect of grain. The Chair is prepared to proceed in the same way as with respect to other amendments, unless there are points of order raised in connection with this matter.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, you have reached the right point. This is the place where the amendment with respect to cash purchase tickets in respect of grain should fall, because this is to be an amendment to clause 6 of the bill. The committee has the alternative either of dealing with the matter, subject to the proper notice being given later at six o'clock, or of deferring the matter and dealing with it later as a stood clause.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to understand why this amendment is being related to clause 6(1) of Bill C-193. I thought the minister said that this was to be applicable as an amendment to section 76 of the act. Clause 6(1) of the bill deals with subsections 65(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, allowances with respect to oil and gas wells, and the like.


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman is right. I had to fit this in somewhere. You will see that clause 6 deals with subsections 65(1) and (2) of the act. Clause 7 deals with clause 87(4)(b)(iii)(A) of the act. I suggest that this is the place into which we should fit the amendment, which will become clause 6(1) of the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I see. I do not think that we should deal with it quite so quickly.


John Napier Turner: Then we will stand that until we have had a chance to think about it and go through the proper formalities.
Income Tax Law (No. 3)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is it agreeable that we deal with this subamendment exactly as we shall deal with the others, namely, present them by way of notice and print them as appendices to today's Votes and Proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Since there appear to be questions in the committee and since these are rather lengthy amendments, I think that this is probably the fairest way of proceeding.
The discussion is now on clause 7.
On clause 7.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in subparagraph (3), at line 30 on page 5, the date May 29, 1973 appears. I notice that use was made originally of that date, May 29, 1973. I wonder if there is anything particularly magical about that date.


John Napier Turner: I suppose one can say that by and large the measure is relieving. But to avoid any sort of retroactivity, we took that date to ensure that we had a starting point, because that is when the original ways and means motion was tabled.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us an explanation of clause 9(1), dealing with section 89 of the Income Tax Act. I think it is somewhat complicated.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, it is complicated. Let us go back to subparagraphs (1)(i)(ii) and (vii). They each contain the same two amendments. The first amendment will prevent double accounting of certain amounts of a corporation's 1971 capital surplus on hand, and the second amendment merely allows one use of a section of the income tax application rules, 1971, also to have that effect for the purpose of computing the 1971 capital surplus on hand. A corporation's 1971 capital surplus on hand represents its capital gains that were accrued but unrealized prior to 1972, when there was no capital gains tax. The corporation may distribute its 1971 capital surplus on hand, tax free to shareholders, rather than having it taxed as normal dividends.
If there was an accrued capital gain of an asset at the end of 1971, subparagraph (ii) deals with that accrued gain to the 1971 capital surplus on hand whenever the asset is sold and the accrued gain is realized. Subparagraph (vii) has the same deduction for an accrued capital loss at the end of 1971.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, sometimes in asking clarification of the minister with respect to some of these matters we are engaging in exercises in futility. Nevertheless, may I say on behalf of those who are practitioners in income tax and others who are closely

July 4, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
following these proceedings in Hansard that the explanations of the minister are invaluable.
Could we follow the practice that we followed previously when considering Bill C-170, I believe. Could the minister explain a clause when we come to it? Rather than saying "this is consequential upon some other change," and so on, could he not perhaps give us a brief explanation? That would satisfy me in most instances, and if there is another question, it would be a true supplementary question.


John Napier Turner: That is perfectly satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. Dealing with clause 10, the purpose of paragraph 104(22) is to ensure that a beneficiary of a trust is able to obtain relief under section 126 for any taxes imposed abroad on that portion of any foreign source income allocated to him by the trustees. This amendment of the bill deletes from paragraph 104(22) (b) and (d) the references therein to subparagraph 20(12), which is repealed. You have to refer back to clause 3 of this bill. The effect is to permit the beneficiary to obtain a credit for foreign income taxes paid to states, provinces and other political subdivisions abroad. That is ancillary to what we were talking about when discussing clause 3.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This would apply to a trust?


John Napier Turner: Exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to explain this clause. These amendments increase the basic exemption for single status from $1,500 to $1,600 and the additional exemption allowed to an individual who supports a spouse from $1,350 to $1,400. As a result of these amendments an individual of single status will not pay income tax until his income exceeds $1,600 which, with the $100 standard deduction, means $1,700.
An individual with full married status, for example a taxpayer who supports a spouse, who does not receive income in excess of $300 will not pay income tax until his income exceeds $1,600, plus $1,400, plus $100, or $3,100. I think that is the basis of the clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, while we are on this clause having to do with the exemption levels that are accorded to persons of single status and married status, can the minister of finance say whether any further consideration has been given to the situation that arises when both partners of a marriage are over 65? I hear the minister say "Ah". He has to give further thought to this. As he knows, this is a matter of concern about which members of parliament receive representations from taxpayers.
I realize the minister has come a reasonable piece by raising the extra exemption that is granted to those over 65 in two jumps, from $500 to $650 and now to $1,000, but it is still the case that that extra $1,000 is allowed only to the taxpayer. The kind of situation that turns up in many

letters I receive relates to the different treatment that is accorded to different married couples depending upon the source of their income.
I recognize that when married couples under the age of 65 are both working a case can be made for a higher total exemption to be enjoyed by them. However, when the husband and wife are both over 65, should it matter whether the income is all in the name of one of the partners or both? If the income is in the name of one partner only, the amount of exemption allowed will be $3,100 plus $1,000, or $4,100. However, if the married couple is in the situation where the retirement income comes partly to one and partly to the other, whether 50/50 or on some other basis, each of them can enjoy a total of $2,700, namely $1,600, plus $100, plus $1,000, for a total of $5,400. My question is, should that difference obtain?
In the case where the wife does not have the income, modern theory says she helped her husband earn his pension status and pension rights. However, if all the money comes in his name, the exemption level is only $4,100. If they manage it so that the money comes in both names, the exemption level can be $5,400. As a matter of fact, in the case of a couple where all the income is in one name, even that $4,100 can be reduced by the amount of the spouse's old age security over a certain figure. There can be cases where the exemption is $4,100 or less and cases where the exemption is $5,400.
I think of the instance where neither is working. They are both retired. They both receive old age security and other forms of pension income. Surely they worked together to produce this situation, whether one was in the home or both were out working. Is there not a case for some sort of equality being established with respect to the income tax exemption level in cases where both spouses are over 65?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the brief answer is that the hon. member is dealing with what is in effect a family unit style of taxing income. We are some distance from that. I might say to him that since I have been Minister of Finance we have raised the level of income for a married couple, where the taxpayer is 65 or over, on which no tax is paid by $500 in the past year and a half, form $3,600 to $4,100. I am conscious of the fact that when we are dealing with exemptions from income, we are dealing with that part of the older population that has deprived itself during lifetime of the ability to consume in order to save for their retirement. I am very conscious about making sure we are fair in this regard. The family unit concept or joint income is a concept that will need a lot further study before I can give any immediate contemplation to the hon. member's suggestion, but I know what he has in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detract by one iota from the Oscar the minister has awarded himself by telling us that in the past year and a half the extra income allowed to a married couple has been increased by $500. In fact, I will give him another Oscar. For some married couples, the exemption has been increased by $1,000, $500 to each. That is the whole point of my intervention. I think the minister understands that this relates to the concept of a family
July 4, 1973

income. He admits it has to be studied. He looks at his high priced help in front of him and says, "you better study this". This is the sort of answer we get to these questions year in and year out. Even assistant deputy ministers will some day be retired on pensions. They have wives.


John Napier Turner: They are immortal!


Stanley Howard Knowles: They retire and receive pensions for themselves and their wives. Maybe by that time they will hire themselves out as consultants as to what should be done, and as to what they did not improve when they were in the department.
In days when we are very conscious of the principle of equality between men and women, there should not be this tax discrimination against wives who stayed home. The wife who stayed home made a contribution to the income and the pension status of her husband. She should not be discriminated against in terms of tax law as compared with the wife who went out to work or inherited some money and has a pension income for herself.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, if that argument has any validity-and I do not want to get into the profundity of it for the moment-it has validity throughout married life, not only at the pension age. We are dealing with a fundamental concept that will have to be looked at in general terms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the minister carrying the profundity of this all the way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I would like to look at the other side of this. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a great desire to put everybody in the same bag and paint them all the same shade of green. He is a great one for the principle of total legality for all, regardless of effort. I have received many complaints from people who ask what is the use of being careful, saving and investing. All that happens is that under the Income Tax Act they are being increasingly penalized and placed in a less favourable position compared with those who did not save. It has to be admitted that some of that latter did not have an opportunity to save, but, let's face it, many people today spend money as they make it regardless of the future. Those others who are careful, or good managers, are penalized.
Let me say this: there is many a wife today who during her senior years possesses a tidy nest egg because she happens to be an astute businesswoman, even though she might not have been obliged to go out to earn. If we propose to consider people who have been careful, I am prepared to say that this differential can be considered a bonus for thrift and I thoroughly agree there should be some sort of incentive.
I remember during the last election campaign several older women, still married, crying into the telephone, actually crying, because their small incomes, money they had scrimped and saved for, and denied themselves for, and which they had invested, was being eaten away in one
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
way or another, whereas those who had nothing and were dependent on the state were getting cost of living bonuses, non-taxable guaranteed income supplements and increases in pensions. Yet the person who had striven hard to save was being increasingly taxed.
I thoroughly agree with this point of view because today there is a philosophy around in government which amounts to this: save now, we will tax you later. I think it is one of the least attractive features of our taxation policy that people who have been careful and who have invested their money should be treated in this way. It may be they have invested in government bonds. A good deal of this money is in government bonds, and there is nothing more patriotic than that, as the Minister of Finance would be the first to agree. On the other hand, the investment could have been in Canadian equities, all sorts of things. We have devised ways and means of separating elderly people from their hard-earned savings. So I consider that at the present time a differential is quite appropriate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise to support the argument put forward by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. The same circumstances have been brought to my attention many times by farm wives, particularly in Saskatchewan. These women work very hard though they may not actually share in the ownership of the farm, which would be registered in the name of the husband. But they work very hard alongside their husbands. If a farm wife does not own part of the farm, that is, if part of the farm is not in her name, the exemption would amount to $3,100. Otherwise, it is $3,400. So there is a difference of $300.
I hope the minister will look at this situation and bring in an amendment next year, or as soon as possible. The same applies to the situation of a wife in a working class home. Many of these wives stay home to look after domestic affairs and family; as a result, they are discriminated against when it comes to claiming exemptions on their tax forms. I believe the minister should consider making amendments of the kind I have in mind as soon as possible in the hope of creating a more egalitarian society.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to say a word about the subject raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I give the minister full credit for the changes he has made in the exemptions I presume they will be worth something in the next election. But having been here through seven or eight elections I can only say I should like to see a number of changes introduced to benefit the workers, and I should like to see them made a lot faster than has been the case in the last ten years.
I, too, receive a good many letters about taxation problems, not so much from elderly ladies-they usually go to somebody else-as from workers who have to travel 50 or 60 miles each day to earn their living and who object strongly to the fact that no allowance is available to them in this regard. They think it is unreasonable that concessions made to one segment of workers do not apply to another. This applies to the construction field, particularly when men live away from home and are obliged to incur additional expenses from Monday to Friday. Others live away for three or four months at a time yet have to maintain homes, in the same way as members of parliament are so often called upon to do.

July 4, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
Then there is the question of the equipment allowance which has recently been available. When it was sought, years ago, we were thinking in terms of oilers and rubbers for miners, about specialized clothing for workers in various industries. Over the years a need has developed for more elaborate equipment; for example, chain saws which are not only desirable but absolutely necessary for some tasks. Originally workers used company equipment to do these jobs. Today these services have expanded, and a worker may provide expensive equipment, particularly in the forest industry; for example, a tree loading machine, or one of those elaborate machines that trim leaves, saw the timber, cut it into lengths and pile it. Such equipment costs tens of thousands of dollars and is supplied by a person who is not really a jobber in the sense of being in the business of supplying equipment. Previously, the companies supplied this or similar equipment.
It seems to me that if a person earns his income by working with equipment of this kind he should be entitled to an allowance just as if he were incorporated and hiring other people to operate the machines. I am speaking of a new development which has taken place only recently.
It seems to me that the Minister of Finance, without really being very generous to the workers of the country, could give consideration to these three problems: transportation allowances, living away from home allowances, and equipment allowances. This would allow a much more equitable relationship among the workers in various areas.
For some time living allowances away from home have been granted to transport workers working on the railways. As a result they have been able to claim transportation costs while working away from home. During the same time many people have had to drive 40 or 50 miles to get to their jobs, and they have not been allowed to claim these expenses.
It seems to me that the minister should look at this situation and perhaps move an amendment to the ways and means motion. There is a great disparity between exemptions allowed people in one industry and those allowed to people in others. I receive many letters of complaint because of these disparities. One man might say his neighbour has a similar job in a different industry and is allowed an exemption for transportation costs which he is not allowed. Another individual might say he only needs a saw and a hammer to perform his job and is allowed an exemption. His neighbour will complain that he has an expenditure of thousands of dollars for the equipment he requires to perform his work, but he is not allowed this exemption. It seems to me that if an individual incorporates he receives the exemption.
We also give allowances to operators of small stores who put signs in their windows offering free home delivery. These men can write off transportation costs but another storekeeper who does not put up a similar sign must pay his own delivery costs.
These inequities should be considered. We should even out things for everybody by either cutting them out altogether or making them available to all. I am sure the minister would agree that he receives thousands of requests for information about these provisions for

exemptions which are not provided on an equitable basis. This seems to be an area in which the minister has made some small endeavour. I would like to see that endeavour made for everyone, covering expenses of all workers.
This is most important in view of changing circumstances in the last few years. Many people drive 40 or 50 miles to get to parliament here in Ottawa. Often members of parliament have to drive 30 or 40 miles to this city because they cannot afford accommodation here. I think a similar problem is faced by workers in industry. I am not making a pitch for members of parliament, but this is the fact. I think those workers who have to do this should be given some consideration. If these allowances are made for workers in certain sections of industry, they should be made for all.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 12.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, we agreed while Your Honour was not in the Chair that as each clause was called the minister would give a short explanation without an hon. member having to request it. We felt this would expedite matters, that if we did not follow that practice we would be using double time.


Gérald Laniel: I should inform the hon. member that I was in the Chair, and I called Clause 12 in order that the minister might reply.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, Section 115 deals with the taxable income of a non-resident earned in Canada that is subject to the payment of the personal or corporate tax rate. Sub-section (1) sets out the source of income, such as employment income, that should be included in non-resident taxable income earned in Canada. Sub-section (1) (b) lists properties which will be taxable in the hands of non-residents. Sub-section (l)(b)(v) provides that an interest in a partnership will constitute taxable Canadian property if more than 50 per cent of this property consists of such property as is described. This amendment adds Canadian resource property and an income interest in a trust resident in Canada, and this will be considered for the purpose of the 50 per cent test.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Do I take it that under these circumstances this will be a form of Canadian taxation on an American investor in Canada, limited to a corporate partnership, as they call them, where the investor can charge this up against principal income? Does this cover the American who has the right to charge off against principal income any loss resulting from an investment in Canadian resource property, thereby having an advantage over the Canadian investor in similar circumstances? Having in mind resource property at this point and the income of a non-resident who is earning income in Canada, what is the purpose of this amendment? What loophole is being closed? What is the motivation behind this amendment?


John Napier Turner: The brief answer is that we are taxing capital gains from the disposition of resource properties in Canada held by non-Canadians. In order to give the hon. member the type of factual situa-
July 4, 1973

tions we are trying to avoid I should need a little time. Perhaps I should put that off until tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


John Napier Turner: I do not want to call it six o'clock for the moment. I should like to wait until the Speaker is in the Chair in order that I might give notice of amendments to this ways and means motion.
Progress reported.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in the day before the committee I gave notice of intention to introduce two amendments to Bill C-193 which will have to be covered by a ways and means motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 60(1), I give notice of a ways and means motion now laid on the table of the House and, pursuant to Standing Order 60(3), I should like to indicate tomorrow as the day designated for calling that motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Should you not do it under Standing Order 60(2)? If you do it under 60(3) we will be proceeding with a six-day budget debate.
Income Tax Law (No. 3)


John Napier Turner: That is why I was
trying to delay my words, working back to the right section. It is Standing Order 60(2).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the suggestion by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that this notice of a ways and means motion will be printed as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings in accordance with our usual practice, and as agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-4, to amend the National Parks Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
It being after six o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At six p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 5, 1973