1973-10-15

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-TWENTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT 22 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
26635-H
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 15, 1973

[ English]

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before going ahead with routine proceedings as we resume this session, may I take one moment to say how pleased all hon. members are to see that the health of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has permitted him to return to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short statement to inform members of developments at the meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, on September 19 and 20, and at the annual meetings of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund in Nairobi, Kenya, September 24 to 28.
At both meetings I strongly urged the need for greater policy co-ordination between countries in controlling the spread of inflation internationally. I emphasized the importance of the international fall-out of domestic inflation, for example, when sudden commodity purchases by one country send waves of inflation into a number of countries or when high interest rates generated by one country create troublesome international capital flows and also produce inappropriate interest rates in other countries. I made it clear that we need to strengthen the fund so that it can provide leadership in creating badly needed co-ordination of policies among countries. We intend to pursue this matter further in the continuing discussions on monetary reform.
[Transla t/on]
I was encouraged that the new Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Witteveen, as well as a number of other representatives at both Conferences, dealt with the problem of international inflation at considerable length. Commonwealth ministers noted, in particular, the problems arising from high food prices and called
for urgent international study of inflation with a view to action to overcoming it and its adverse effects, especially for developing countries.
The meetings in Dar-es-Salaam provided a useful opportunity for an exchange of views between ministers from Commonwealth countries on the major issues involved in monetary reform and on the current world economic situation as it relates to both developed and developing countries. Ministers welcomed the agreement which had been reached in Tokyo the previous week to launch comprehensive trade negotiations, stressed the importance of a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations and urged that they lead to an improvement in the trading position of the developing countries.
Ministers devoted a large part of their time to questions related to improving the relative positions of the less developed countries of the Commonwealth. Discussion included items referred to them by the Ottawa Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting of last August.
Among the more important of these items was the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-Operation. I am pleased to report that as Canada's representative I expressed our support for strong, continuing Commonwealth arrangements and reaffirmed the pledge, given by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the Heads of Government Meeting, of a significant increase in our contributions to this Fund.
[ English]
There was much discussion among Commonwealth countries concerning the possibility of a link between the creation of special drawing rights and development assistance as an integral part of the reformed monetary system. We have examined the link proposal with great care, and this we have done not just because of our interest in monetary reform but also because of our firm conviction that development finance must increase and must be soundly based. We are concerned that such a link might hinder the acceptance of the SDR as the principal asset of the reformed system. We are also apprehensive that such a link might inhibit the establishing and maintaining of control over international liquidity which is essential to reform. Moreover, we are not convinced that such a link would increase the flow of development assistance.
As I have already said, this government regards such an increase as being very important. I urged in both Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi that further work be undertaken to see if these difficulties might be surmounted. The Commonwealth finance ministers, I am happy to report, agreed that the next step should be to examine specific link mechanisms which would be consistent with a soundly based international monetary system. Furthermore, the Ministers of the Committee of Twenty have instructed their deputies to establish a special technical group to examine in a comprehensive and detailed manner the

October 15, 1973
Finance
question of the transfer of real resources to the developing countries as it relates to monetary reform.
With the permission of the House, I should like to table a copy of the communique issued at Dar-es-Salaam following the meeting which reflects the wide range of topics discussed.
I am pleased to announce in this House that the Commonwealth Finance Ministers accepted Canada's invitation to meet next year in Ottawa.
The annual meetings of the IMF/IBRD in Nairobi were preceded by a meeting of the Committee of Twenty on Monetary Reform on Sunday, September 23. This provided an opportunity for the committee to review the work of their deputies. A good deal has been achieved since the committee was established last year, but many ministers, including myself, expressed a degree of impatience over the pace of progress to date.
I am concerned that, if results are not soon achieved, the momentum of the discussions may be lost. The issues that have to be dealt with include suitable techniques for redressing payments imbalances, rules relating to converting currencies into primary reserve assets, methods for dealing with the problem of excessive holdings of currency reserves, the role of gold in the system, and the problem of valuing the SDR in terms of currencies and deciding what rate of interest it should carry.
The committee, and the governors of the fund as a whole, are cognizant of the urgency which is attached to resolving these questions. In my interventions in the committee and in my statement at the annual meetings, I stressed the importance of proceeding to implement reform in a sequential way as changing economic conditions permit. Specifically, I pointed out that more effective consultation over matters such as adjustment problems and exchange market developments could begin now. This could be done through special meetings of the executive board of the fund attended by representatives from capitals. I also believe that SDR valuation problems might well be solved through the deliberation of the fund executive board, and that progress with respect to the role of gold and the reduction of excessive currency balances through bilateral funding also need not await full-fledged reform of the system.
I believe it unlikely that an ideal environment for the implementation of a fully revised monetary system will emerge in the next few months. In particular, it will not be possible to complete the reform until the United States balance of payments, which is now improving, has achieved a much stronger position. This should not, however, impede progress in particular areas which could even now contribute to improved stability and confidence in world monetary arrangements.

The Committee of Twenty Ministers have set for themselves a deadline of July 31, 1974, for the settlement of the outstanding issues needed to achieve an agreed outline of reform. In working to this objective, the committee will meet in January and again in the spring. At the same time,

our deputies will pursue with a new sense of urgency the work program which we have set for them.
The House will be interested in the position we took on monetary reform. 1 made our position quite clear in my statement to the governors, elaborating on it at some length. I should like, with the permission of the House, to table this statement for the information of hon. members. For the convenience of members, I will also table a copy of the Report of the Chairman of the Committee of Twenty to the Fund Board of Governors, as well as the First Outline of Reform prepared by the deputies and the statements made by the managing director.
With respect to the World Bank group, the principal issue was the Fourth Replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association, the World Bank's concessional lending arm. In his statement to the annual meeting, which I am tabling today, Mr. McNamara stressed the urgency of reaching agreement on the replenishment so that the association could continue lending operations in the poorest developing countries after July 1, 1974.

I am glad to report that representatives of donor countries were able to agree at Nairobi to recommend to their legislatures a total replenishment of $4.5 billion U.S. for the period 1974 to 1976. On behalf of Canada I pledged a contribution, subject to the approval of parliament, of $274.5 million, or 6.1 per cent of the total. I also assured Mr. McNamara that the Canadian government would do all it could to ensure that Canada's contribution can be made on time.
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the minister who sent us a copy of his statement along with the related documentation in time to allow us to study it, at least partially. It is true that the minister had sufficient time to think about his statement and prepare a text with somewhat ambiguous passages to embroil matters a bit, because it should be noted that the minister was reporting on his participation in two conferences. First, he participated in the conference of the Finance Ministers of Commonwealth countries, which have particular problems and are bound by special ties. Then, he took part in a much more important conference in Kenya, where he discussed international problems, inflation and the reform of the monetary system with his colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, in the text which we have been given, the minister has confused these meetings; however, he was probably unable to indicate the problems which are still unsolved or suggest an acceptable solution.

It was interesting to hear the minister start out to speak on a subject in connection with which he needs nothing better than the situation in Canada as an inspiration for his concern. I refer to the lack of control over inflation in Canada which this government displays. The hon. gentleman could therefore attend both conferences as a great expert on the problems of inflation, though he did not tell us what might be the solutions. In this regard, at the foot of the first page of his statement he says;
October 15, 1973

I was encouraged that the new managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Witteveen, as well as a number of other representatives at both conferences, dealt with the problem of international inflation at considerable length.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is the beauty of combining the reports. The minister immediately moves in the next sentence to the Commonwealth ministers conference and says that the Commonwealth ministers noted, in particular, the problems arising from high prices, and so on. It would have been interesting had the minister continued and let us know what Mr. Witteveen had said in his report to the directors of the International Monetary Fund a while earlier. Mr. Witteveen said, as found in the IMF survey:
In order to use this opportunity for a real break-through in the struggle against inflation it may prove essential to supplement monetary and fiscal policies by some form of incomes policy to act directly on prices and wages which are not determined competitively. For recent experience has shown that elimination of excess demand, while necessary to bring down inflation, may by itself not be sufficient for this purpose. Effective incomes policies will be all the more necessary in an international climate from which the inflationary bias has been removed. Under such conditions a continuation of wage and price increases at present rates might easily have adverse repercussions on growth and employment, especially in those countries whose competitive position has suffered by the adjustment of exchange rates.
How true, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister now tell us this: did he in his comments at the conference of the International Monetary Fund express the views of the Canadian government with regard to the director-general's recommendation concerning an incomes policy? It would be very interesting to hear what the minister had to say in that regard.
I certainly support the hon. gentleman in his keen desire for international co-operation in dealing with inflation. But, right there, he fails to follow through. After all, if 12 out of the 19 OECD countries have partial or almost full controls at this time, why is it that Canada must distinguish itself by being one of the countries least able to deal with its inflation, doing the least about it and having only minimal controls?


John Napier Turner: Because they have not worked.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of information, the minister says they will never work.


John Napier Turner: No, I did not say that. I said because they have not worked.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But nothing seems to be working in Canada. Inflation is running rampant every month. It seems to me that, having gone to the African continent, the minister has continued to emulate the attitude of that famous large bird which is endemic to the area and buried his head in the sand.
On the question of monetary reform, there too I share the minister's apprehension that progress is being made very, very slowly. We have just gone through several months of the most agonizing international financial crises in 1973 and I do not think the world can stand another round of that sort of thing. I do not know whether we have a picture of countries frozen into immobility,
Finance
unable to think and act in regard to reforming international monetary relationships. To this extent I agree with the minister that things must happen a lot more quickly.
The minister did not speak of this point because at the time of the conferences the Middle East crisis had not broken out, but I am wondering whether part of the crises of 1973 was not a carefully engineered preliminary within the framework of the International Monetary Fund, leading to the outbreak of hostilities today. It may be that the minister thinks this a little farfetched but I want him to think about it. In any event, it merely illustrates that it can happen.
We also want to know what proposals Canada has made regarding international monetary reform, whether the minister is talking about a broader band or about a creeping peg, and what should be the rights of developing countries to participate in a special category of drawing rights, which I think would unnecessarily complicate what is essentially an exchange program through a foreign aid program around the world.
My last point is this. I could quote extensively from Mr. Witteveen's final summary to the conference in regard to the nature of monetary reform progress which has been made, but it seems that there is to be a fixed exchange system which will be the cornerstone of the reform system. At this point I should like to ask the minister: Did Canada insist that there should be a right to float? If so, how does this square with the minister's reported statement that he expects that Canada will soon return to a pegged exchange rate, as it should be doing in order to conform with the present agreement?
The minister has furnished us with a great deal of material to examine in detail, but this is not the time to do so. I can see that Your Honour is becoming impatient. The minister has made a ten-minute statement. I hope that my reply covering the same ground has been equally short.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the minister saw fit to make a statement in the House today about the meetings he attended over the last few weeks on the world monetary situation. I cannot say that I am pleased, and I do not think many hon. members are, with the progress of those meetings. Indeed, the progress has been very discouraging. The lack of any solution regarding the world monetary system and problems relating to the United States dollar has been discouraging.
I think Canada could have played a more positive role in taking the initiative toward finding solutions to these problems. Perhaps the minister in his statement should have outlined more fully the opinion he expressed and the approaches he took at these conferences. About the only positive thing that resulted from these meetings is the fact that the group of 20 set a deadline of July 31, next year, to find a solution. Various technical committees have been established in an effort to hammer out the details of an acceptable solution.
I think the most important thing missing from the discussions held in Africa, as covered by the minister's statement, is the role of the multinational corporations, financial institutions and banks throughout the world and the influence and power they exert in respect of world

October 15, 1973
Finance
financial and monetary conditions. I have in front of me a copy of the Canadian Business Survey for 1971. It contains statistics that reveal the tremendous powers of multinational corporations, with particular reference to their effect on world monetary policy. They indicate that at the end of 1971 the multinational corporations had short-term liquid funds amounting to $268 billion. That is more than double the entire amount of the official short-term funds of all the countries that are members of the International Monetary Fund. I repeat: the multinational corporations had more than double the short-term liquid funds of all the countries which belong to that association.
That is the position of the countries belonging to this association which are trying to get together to solve international financial problems. One can realize from these statistics the effect that the policies of these huge international corporate giants can have on balance of payments problems, on problems in respect of interest rates and on commodity prices. In spite of this, we do not find much in the minister's statement regarding what attitude the world community is going to take toward multinational corporations. We do not see anything in the minister's statement in respect of who is to police their activities, or who is going to say what they can and cannot do.
I cannot help but emphasize that the power of these corporations is largely responsible for much of the inflationary rate we are experiencing today. The expansion of American based multinational corporations outside of the United States has had a serious effect on the U.S. balance of payments. This also has an effect on the value of the Canadian and American dollars, driving them down, and the subsequent appreciation of the German mark, the French franc and the Japanese yen. This has resulted in increasing the prices of commodities imported into in Canada. I suggest that all of this is due to the corporate policies of these giants, most of which decide policy without respect for the ordinary citizen or governments around the globe. These corporations decide policies behind closed doors where most nations of the world cannot exert influence.
My second concern is in respect of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other banking institutions which are doing very little to develop the needy countries of the world. I know as a fact that many of these countries resent the policies of our international monetary institutions. What they want instead is some significant effort toward providing them with a fair share of the trade enjoyed by developed countries. I suggest that our banks are partially responsible for the international monetary situation. They have international arrangements. They have literally billions of dollars tied up in investments and assets in other countries round the world such as the Caribbean and Europe. These are problems we will have to solve. They are what we might call serious ideological problems which the world community must solve if we are to reform the monetary system.
Third, what is the reaction of the minister to the current move in the world toward special drawing rights and away from gold as a standard? He does comment extensively on this in his report, but I should like him to elaborate and

provide the House with more information concerning Canada's position. It is very important when talking about developing the third world to remember that the poorer countries have very little influence on the financial policies of the world in general. It is very important that we learn more about the minister's attitude toward special drawing rights.
Finally, as I said, it is important that we solve the monetary problems of the world because a lot of the instability creates inflation in our country and precisely because of that we do not have control of our economy and do not determine many of the decisions we must determine if we are to control the economic situation in our own country. We in this country should not use the international situation and the importation of inflation as an excuse for not doing anything about controlling inflation in Canada. We can tackle some of the multinationals. In Canada we produce commodities like energy, lumber, copper, iron and steel and we could control to a large degree the prices of many of these commodities that we produce if we only had the guts to tackle some of the multinational corporations and international cartels.
These are things we should be doing if only the minister would get off his fanny and start acting in a decisive and positive manner instead of sitting back in an international financial conference and saying, "Oh my, it is a difficult problem and we cannot solve it". We can do many things. We can put exchange controls on our interest rates if we want to bring down interest rates in this country. We can make certain investment policies mandatory. These are things we can do in Canada and which we should be suggesting to the other countries in the international arena as well. I am not satisfied and I am sure the people of Canada are not satisfied. I urge the minister to press ahead and do all he can in a decisive and positive manner to reform the world monetary system so that the poorer countries of the world, Canada and the ordinary citizens will be beneficiaries of that reform and not the international monetary institutions.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has shown clearly enough the almost complete failure of the International Monetary Fund. He actually attended two meetings, one within the Commonwealth of nations, and the other which brought together representatives of various countries of the world in Africa and at both meetings, the minister found-like his colleagues at those meetings-that the system should be reformed.
There is much talk about the monetary reform of the international fund. They do not know which way to turn, they are lost in conjecture. Inflation is destroying one country after another and they talk of monetary reform without determining clearly the lines and structures of a necessary reform. Mr. Speaker, in 1944, when the Bretton Woods Agreements were signed, the Creditiste members of that time, along with Solon Low and John Blackmore, were against those agreements and they described then exactly what is happening today to the International Monetary Fund.
I say that the world bank is at the present time a complete failure, which undoubtedly shows this organiza-
October 15, 1973

tion's inability to maintain a steady economic growth in its member countries or in the countries that are united under its aegis. Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, all countries are suffering from inflation. In Canada, we have inflation; some people advocate a price and salary freeze. This was tried in certain countries. In others, it was abandoned. But in any of the member countries of that organization, it will be noticed that inflation is more . devastating there than in Canada. In France, for instance, a black and white television set, which costs here $175 or $180, costs over there $425. In other countries, it is still worse. It is the same in every field.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes have been claiming for a long time that a monetary reform should not be superficial only. To change four quarters for ten dimes may represent a reform but it only adds up to a dollar just the same.
Therefore, what we suggest is a basic reform: that all new credits be debt free. It is the debt-money system. Debts have lead the various nations to this situation, including Canada. The currency created should be free of debt and interest. Thus, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) lends me $10, I will give him back $10.50, including 50 cents interest. This is quite normal, because he agrees to lend me money. But the financial system is lending us something that it does not own. It cashes in on our properties, our assets, our country and requires from us that we pay a tribute, an interest on our properties. This is the kind of reform that we must achieve as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker, in order to free not only other countries but also our own, Canada.

[ English]


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. members of the House would be interested in a report on the immigration adjustment program which was approved by Parliament earlier this year and created by the amendment to the Immigration Appeal Board Act. This has, since last June 18, enabled thousands of persons in this country, both legally and illegally, to come forward and obtain landed immigrant status without fear of being prosecuted for having violated the immigration laws so far as their method of entry or style of staying here is concerned. The opportunity given to them under the said program ends at midnight tonight under the legislation to which I have referred.
I am pleased to say that thousands of lives have taken on new meaning as a result of this opportunity. By the time our offices closed last night, the immigration offices-and they were open yesterday across Canada- once the dependents of the applicants are taken into account, 45,180 persons will have been registered for this opportunity. To this, of course, must be added the results of today's activities. To indicate that this response has been a national one, these are the numbers of registrations of persons involved by region: in the Atlantic region, 3,036; in Quebec, 7,355, in Ontario, 25,169, in the Prairies, 5,008, in
Immigration
the Pacific, 4,612, for a total of 45,180. I am sure that members will understand that it has not been possible to process all these cases as they are received.
Only the registration must take place by midnight and we have given that priority. Nevertheless, I am able to say that 16,940 cases involving 21,996 persons have already been favourably assessed and the persons concerned will be landed subject to completion of the normal medical and other immigrant requirements.
There has been some suggestion in the media and from other sources that these results may be disappointing to the government and that the number of persons eligible for the program is far higher than the number of those who have, in fact, registered. Uninformed guesses have been made regarding the number of people who may be in Canada illegally. These unfounded speculations relate to a range anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 people. I hasten to make it clear that at no time to my knowledge has the government given any estimate of the size of the group that might benefit from the adjustment program.


An hon. Member:: You do not know.


Robert Knight Andras: That is quite correct. We do not know, and we could only make such a suggestion if we had a system of registering at ports of entry every one of the 38 million non-Canadians who come into Canada each year and reregistering each one again on departure. Such a tight system of control, I suggest, would be abhorrent to the Canadian people and would do tremendous injury to our important tourist industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Instead of indulging in speculation on the number of people who might qualify, the program might better be judged on whether or not the potential registrants were made aware of their opportunity. I am satisfied that the message did indeed get across and that there are very few who did not hear it. Our advertising campaign was one of the most extensive ever used by my department. We employed radio, television, the press, posters in traffic locations, halls, and transit systems. Advertisements appeared in all of the English and French dailies and in the ethnic press as well. Broadcasts were made in almost every language heard on Canadian streets.
However, the paid campaign was only part of the publicity campaign. Wide news coverage of the program and of individual cases was given on news reports, on radio broadcasts and television specials. My officials and I appeared on numerous programs and attended hundreds of meetings. Leaders of the ethnic and other community organizations gave the program the strongest support, and many members of this House from all parties also placed their support and influence behind the program, for which I must express my most sincere appreciation. In short, the adjustment program not only received national support but also active participation by thousands of persons who encouraged those eligible to come forward.
The effect of the advertising and the public support was indicated in a Gallup poll which we commissioned in the
6826

October 15, 1973
Immigration
first week in September when the program had been under way for only three weeks. On a national basis, even at this early stage 69.7 per cent of those interrogated were aware of the program, and this high level of awareness was held by persons interviewed whose mother language was other than French or English. Of this number, 81.2 per cent knew that further information could be obtained from a Canada immigration centre or a Canada manpower centre.
As hon. members will recall, the adjustment of status program is only one of three measures referred to when I introduced Bill C-197 last June. Under the special administrative measures introduced in June, 1972 to review the backlog in the inquiry system, we have now dealt favourably with cases involving 13,500 persons. The Immigration Appeal Board has ruled favourably on 3,500 cases since June of this year, using the new authority to sit as single member panels. I am announcing later today the appointment of 13 temporary members under the new legislation, and among the cases they will hear, 17,800 appeals to the board have already been favourably reviewed by my officers against the relaxed criteria applicable under the adjustment of status program. Through these three special actions in the past 15 months there are, therefore, some 80,000 people who may now expect to gain the right to live in Canada and who were formerly in fear of deportation. By midnight tonight, that figure will be even greater.
Despite my conviction that the message has indeed been delivered, I have recently received some suggestions from thoughtful people that there may still be some potential registrants who have not heard of the program or that there may be some who are reluctant to come forward because of a fear, unfounded though it may be, but nevertheless a real fear of the bureaucracy. As I have said, I am satisfied that the program has reached its intended audience. I am also confident that we have done all we could to allay these fears. I recognize that it does take time to establish a climate of trust. That trust can only be really obtained when a person who is hanging back sees that his friends have been dealt with favourably. For the first part of the campaign, my officials were involved with the process of registering the thousands who came forward. An assessment of individual cases has to take place later. For some weeks we have been publicizing the success rate of applications and, as it has become known that the chances of success are very high indeed, there has been an indication that those who had been holding back have indeed been coming forward. From a daily average fluctuating between 550 and 870 registrants in the first seven weeks of the campaign, registrants are now coming forward at a much higher rate. There were new registrations on October 12, for example, involving 1,429 persons.
These figures lead me to believe that there is now great confidence in the program and that by midnight tonight when our offices close all those who wish to come forward will or should have done so.
In view of the concern expressed, not only by responsible organizations but also by responsible newspapers in Canada, that more time may be needed to allow the new climate of trust to take effect, we are assessing the situation closely as the time available to register draws to a

close. I will also listen carefully to any of the comments made by hon. members. As hon. members are aware, any extension of the adjustment program would require new legislation to be passed by parliament.
In closing I would like to emphasize that whichever way we go, this involves a very serious decision, one which I do not think anybody here would suggest we take casually or too hastily. There are costs as well as benefits on either side of the suggestion. On the one hand, if extension is considered, the effect on attitudes of countless thousands of people abroad for whom Canada is so attractive that they will seek and test any loophole which would allow them to come here must be taken into account as well as any apparent lack of will to hold firm to our immigration laws as announced. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the effect of the commitment of resources to an ad hoc program of this type for a prolonged period of time. On the other hand, we must judge whether we have cleaned up the bulk of the problem with which we have been faced. Certainly, we do want to avoid mass deportations and we want to ensure that our program has been effective. In view of all the publicity which has been given to this program and all the effort put into it, we are entitled, before we make a decision, to get pretty substantial evidence that there may be or may not be great numbers of people who have not been reached by all our publicity before we act.
In closing, I should like to reiterate again that I will be very interested in the views of hon. members in the response to my statement.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for the courtesy he extended to me in allowing me to have his statement not only so that I could read it but so that the members of our caucus might see it. When I received the statement I smiled because, if this statement points out anything, it points out the hesitancy and uncertainty of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Until yesterday the minister, without any equivocation whatsoever, was indicating to the whole country that there would not be an extension after October 15. I would like to read portions of his statement. On page 1 I find these words:
The opportunity given to them to make "our country, your country," ends at midnight tonight.
That is a statement of fact. Yet, when we review the minister's statement we find that later he says:
As I have said, I am satisfied that the program has reached its intended audience.
To demonstrate the equivocation of the minister and the frustration he is causing the people of Canada, particularly those who are interested in this most serious program, let me read certain other parts of the statement. He states:
These figures lead me to believe that there is now complete confidence in the program and that by midnight tonight when our offices close, all those who wish to come forward will have done
so.
October 15, 1973

Those are statements of fact, Mr. Speaker, and the minister and his department are the only ones who have any information whatsoever.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with great respect to the hon. member I want to point out that I sent him a draft copy of the statement and if he will carefully examine my comments he will see that when I was on my feet I did, as I think is properly my right, make some corrections and changes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You change every ten minutes.


An hon. Member:: We cannot even rely on the statement.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. minister, I am sure, would appreciate and agree with the Chair that this is hardly a point of order but a point of debate. I would hope that we might continue with the hon. member for Hamilton West. At the same time, I think I might remind the hon. member for Hamilton West of the terms of Standing Order 15 which gives him the right to make comments without provoking debate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to provoke a debate with my remarks, though apparently they cut home as far as the minister is concerned. Without replying to what he has said, let me read the last paragraph of the statement which leads me to say that the government has not made up its mind what to do in this most serious situation at this time. The last paragraph reads:
In view of the concern expressed not only by responsible organizations but also by responsible newspapers in Canada, that more time may be needed to allow the new climate of trust to take effect, we are assessing the situation closely as the time available to register draws to a close. I will also listen carefully to any comments from hon. members. As hon. members are aware, any extension of the adjustment program would require new legislation to be passed by parliament.
What the minister is attempting to do is acquire direction and leadership from editorial comment and the reaction of Canadians. I am very surprised by this statement because there are a number of matters which should have been dealt with to allay the fears of many of these illegal immigrants. Did the minister mention anything about his policy with respect to the alleged witch hunt? This is of great concern to many of these people, but the minister ignored it. Did the minister give selective assurances with respect to his attitude as to what moral turpitude means? What does the prohibited clause mean? How do we find proof of residency? What does the minister think about those people who have been working but not filing income tax returns? These matters are of great concern and the questions should have been answered. There should have been some indication of what the government and the minister think about them, but nothing was said because the minister does not know what to do and is seeking
Immigration
advice from members of parliament and the people of Canada.
This has been a magnificent program, Mr. Speaker; there is no doubt about that. It is unique. No other country has attempted to do what we have done and we on this side of the House wish the minister every success. I dislike being partisan but in view of what is happening I have to be. We can see from the statement that the minister has made up his mind that there will be an extension. Why does he not come to the House and say that he wants two more weeks? If we are given the facts we will approach the matter with an open mind, especially as the program came from this side of the House in the first instance. We remember when the minister cut off applications and we protested that it should not be done in that way but should be approached in a humanitarian manner. At first the minister disagreed but suddenly he flip-flopped and brought in this legislation which we endorse.
I repeat that this is a good program but we hope that the minister will consider the economics of the matter. I do not know how many people are involved but if the time is extended we may get another 10,000 or 5,000 people. This would save the country money compared with the mass deportation orders that would have to ensue eventually.
We are not going to tell the minister what to do. He knows what we think as we started this program in the first instance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Get out of the job.


Robert Knight Andras: What has he said?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the advertisements have been good; there is no question about that. I still believe, however, as many other people do, that there are some who have not been reached and perhaps there are some who are not yet prepared to accept the government's sincerity. If this be true, I wish the minister would tell us; that is what we are waiting to hear. If this be a fact, perhaps there is need to extend the program. If the minister would bring the facts before us and let us know whether he wants an extension of time we would be prepared to approach this matter with an open mind for the benefit of Canada and Canadians.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) criticizes the government for the inadequacy of this program-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: -and then says it is for his party to express an opinion on whether the program should be extended. As to the success of the program, close to 50,000 people have come forward. This indicates, first of all, that we have a mess of considerable proportions in this country. People who were here-


An hon. Member:: Whose fault was that?
6828

October 15, 1973
Immigration


David Orlikow: The hon. member asks whose fault that was. It was the fault of all members of the House and all parties who agreed to the amendment of the Immigration Act which permitted visitors to apply for citizenship while in Canada. That encouraged people to come here as visitors and then stay. All parties agreed to that so we are all somewhat responsible for the mess. The mess was also created by the fact that the Immigration Appeal Board did not have enough members to deal with the applications and so they backed up. We are all responsible for the mess, Mr. Speaker.
We can all agree that the government should have proceeded with this kind of program before. However, it finally did initiate the program which has brought forward 45,000 people whose applications are now being processed. In the last part of his statement the minister made it clear that in the latter part of the campaign the number of applications daily had increased from somewhere in the neighbourhood of 550 or 780 to over 1,400 on October 12. This seems to make it clear that a substantial number of those people who are in this country illegally had no doubt that they would be dealt with in a generous way despite the initial lack of information available to them. Because of the increasing rate of applications toward the end of the program it seems to me there is every reason to grant an extension.
I cannot fault the minister for having announced a week ago that he was not prepared to propose an extension of two weeks or a month. Had he done that, perhaps the applicants who came forward in the last week would not have felt it necessary to do so. I think that everything the minister has said and all the reports coming in indicate that the program has been successful and that the message did get across.
I want to say to the minister, without going into what might have been done or what was done in the past, that the program is working. If the minister were prepared to make a proposal to extend it for one month we in this party would approve. I think I can speak for my colleagues and say that if he were to bring forward the necessary amendment we would permit its passage without debate. I urge him to do that and to continue the campaign the department carried on through the media so that as many of the people who are here illegally as possible will come forward and legalize their position.
[Transla tion]


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) for his statement on the regularization of the status of some 45,000 immigrants who were illegally in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this program reminds me a kind of temporary alternative meant to cope with some inadequate administration or the effects of a poor immigration policy. If this program has become necessary in Canada to enable more than 45,000 individuals who are officially non-residents to regularize their status, it shows that the Immigration Act should probably be entirely overhauled. How come Canada has 45,000 immigrants whose status is not regularized and why was it finally necessary to launch a

publicity campaign to retreive those people and invite them to become full-fledged Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, this shows that our policy immigration is unsatisfactory, that it no longer meets our needs nor reflects the whole image of Canada abroad.
Mr. Speaker, the standards of our Immigration Act should be reconsidered so that in the future, such conditions will be avoided.
Of course, the minister and the government must be congratulated for having allowed these citizens to straighten out their situation in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, even though we have been making this proposal year after year, the same problem will arise again. Why then should they not tackle the real problem of immigration and bring this legislation again before Parliament in order that immigration standards and this whole policy be reconsidered and that this ridiculous situation does not arise again.
This is a shameful situation both for the people who have come here secretly-I know some who were afraid to report to these famous offices-and for certain foreigners who have made an application but who are facing some officials who cannot accept them because of an obsolete law.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if this government wanted to be smart in this field, it would reconsider completely the Immigration Act rather than content itself with repairing damages.
* *
*


BRIDGES
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages a statement on international bridges, with particular reference to the Ambassador Bridge. The text of the statement will be transmitted today to the parties interested in the Ambassador Bridge.
* *
*


EXTERNAL. AFFAIRS RECOGNITION OF NEW GOVERNMENT OF CHILE- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney):
That this House expresses its regret that the government did not see fit to withhold diplomatic recognition of the military government of Chile installed as a result of a military coup in which the democratically elected President lost his life and in which the fundamental human rights of many of the people of Chile have been disregarded;
October 15, 1973

And further calls upon the government to do all in its power to undertake a humanitarian effort to save the lives of political refugees who had taken refuge in Chile.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


POSSIBLE SHORTAGE OF NATURAL GAS FOR NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA INDUSTRIES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Labour and industry in northern British Columbia are panicstricken as a result of announcements made by Westcoast Transmission and Inland Natural Gas which indicate a possible shortage of supply of natural gas to large industrial users in that area. Industrial plants have been notified by letter of this fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member at this moment. I think, as we resume the current session, that hon. members should try to keep in mind the strictures set down from time to time by the Chair on the basis of long established precedents in relation to Standing Order 43. I think it is basic and essential that hon. members should remember that Standing Order 43 is a very special Standing Order in that it allows a member to seek the unanimous consent of the House without debate. If hon. members take advantage of this Standing Order to make statements and speeches advancing arguments in support of the motion they wish to propose for the unanimous consent of the House, then it would be, I suggest, in order to allow other members who hold contrary views to make their own speeches. Standing Order 43, I suggest, can be used only in very special circumstances, and without argument or supporting statements.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my lengthy preamble. In the absence of a policy that can deal with a crisis of this nature, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources be instructed to immediately work out a solution to this problem and to particularly study the restriction or curtailment of the flow of natural gas to the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Energy


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimity. The hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to put a motion.
The question of the commissioning of works of art for public buildings has come under fire, both as to the method of selection and quality of art. Since many Canadian artists feel they are not given equal opportunity and since, as chairman of the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The comments I have just made in relation to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, which also apply, I might say in passing, to the comments made by the hon. member for Greenwood in support of his motion, apply to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cochrane. I suggest that no argument should be advanced in support of a motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I will leave out the rest of the preamble. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel):
That the whole question of the commissioning of works of art by government be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts with instructions for the committee to report back to this House with its findings and specific recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cochrane. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put at this time.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, I ask leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration,

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions

namely, the present conflict in the Middle East which increases the dangers to world peace, and the urgent need for the government and parliament to debate the seriousness of the situation and to seek ways and means of avoiding further escalation of the war and of promoting effective international action to bring peace to the area.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if this matter is acceptable for debate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), that this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 26, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has given notice of his intention to move for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the matter to which he has referred.
Obviously, the Middle East conflict is an international problem which concerns and worries every member of this House. It is quite possible that there would be an advantage in discussing the matter in this House at a given moment following consultations between representatives of the parties. I believe that this procedure should be considered rather than holding today a debate under Standing Order 26.
After much reflection, I have therefore concluded that, for the present at least, and for procedural reasons, the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe cannot be put under Standing Order 26.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Forrestall: For the contracts issued in 1971 and 1972 tor hauling Arctic cargo by water, did the government waive or otherwise mitigate the qualification requirements for Canadian registry in terms of safety standards or vessel condition in any instance and, if so (a) in what instances (b) by what specific authority?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The qualification requirements for Canadian registry which, it should be noted, do not include safety standards or vessel condition, were not waived or otherwise mitigated in the case of any of the contracts mentioned.


Mr. Forrestall: For (a) 1971 (b) 1972, for each of the shipping companies which failed to be successful in bidding for the contracts to haul Arctic cargo, what were (i) the names of the companies (ii) if subsidiar-

ies, the names of the parent companies (iii) the nationality of the companies or parent companies as the case may be?


Jean Marchand: (a) 1971: Hall Corporation Shipping (1969) Ltd., Federally Incorporated; Gillespie Munro (1969) Ltd., Federally Incorporated; (b) 1972; Transworld Shipping Limited, Federally Incorporated; Braemar Shipping Limited, Federally Incorporated; Hall Corporation Shipping (1969) Limited, Federally Incorporated.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the name of the general contractor assigned to take care of marine requirements of a shipping nature to the Arctic in 1972?
2.	What, if any, labour trouble did this contractor have in the recent sealift operation, and what was the nature of such trouble?
3.	Was the contractor an established member of the Canadian shipping industry, operating a permanent Canadian flag fleet and, if so, what was the date of his incorporation?
4.	Was any effort made by the government to find a long established member of the Canadian shipping industry operating a permanent Canadian flag fleet to fill this role and (a) if so, of what nature (b) if not, for what reason?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Ministry of Transport acts as co-ordinator of all shipping contracts into the Arctic, and is, therefore, involved in the calling of tenders and letting of contracts to different shipping companies for the transportation of goods. In 1972, these companies were, as recorded in answer to question No. 1965.
2.	None to our knowledge.
3.	Yes.
4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Boirvert: What is the amount of the deficit for the CNR line between Montreal and Quebec City?


Jean Marchand: The
management of the Canadian National Railways advises as follows: It is not company policy to reveal such data, the public knowledge of which would be detrimental to the company's operations as a commercial enterprise.


Mr. Haliburton: What was the number, of personnel employed by the Fisheries Service of the Department of the Environment or other departments for oceanographic research, having their operations based in the province of Nova Scotia on (a) a full-time basis (b) a part-time basis for the years 1940, 1950, 1970 and 1972?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: October 15, 1973

(a)	1940	1950
Energy, Mines and
Resources	-	-Environment	-	-National Defence -	*2Transport	-	-1970	1972145	48-	114
(b)
Energy, Mines and
Resources	-	-	14	-Environment	-	-	-	7National Defence -	-	-	-	-Transport	-	-	178	213
* In 1950, two full-time scientists were engaged in pure oceanography but of these, one devoted only about half his time to this type of work. These scientists were supported by technical staff and research ship services.


Mr. Atkey: 1.	What governmental authority or agency is responsible for setting the motor vehicle parking fees at the Toronto International Airport at Malton?
2.	What criteria are adopted in setting the motor vehicle parking fees and, in particular, what margin of profit is allowed to the parking lot operator?
3.	What were the gross and net receipts respectively for the open and indoor parking lots at Toronto International Airport at Malton for 1970, 1971 and 1972?
4.	What is the present motor vehicle parking capacity at Toronto International Airport at Malton and how is this divided between open air and indoor parking spaces?
5.	What percentage of the parking spaces are allocated to official cars, rental car agencies or other reserve purposes and what charge is made for these parking spaces in each instance?
6.	Apart from the new parking capacity recently opened in conjunction with Terminal 2 at Toronto International Airport, what additional parking capacity is expected to be added in the near future?
7.	Which company or agency operates the shuttle bus service between Terminal 1, Terminal 2 and the outdoor parking lots at Toronto International Airport and Which government authority or agency determines the standard and level of service to be provided and the fare to be charged?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Ministry of Transport.
2.	The parking fees take into account the cost of providing and maintaining the facilities and the rates charged for comparable parking facilities in the downtown area of Toronto. The public parking areas are operated for the ministry under a contract awarded after a public tender call. All parking fees collected by the contractor are deposited daily to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada. The contractor is paid his actual wage costs not exceeding the total annual amount tendered plus fixed management fee as tendered.
3. Fiscal year ending
March 31, 1971 March 31, 1972 March 31, 1973
Order Paper Questions Gross Revenue $
Net Revenue

2,380,404	672,708*
2,972,283	1,178,928*
3,741,790	1,610,200*
*After deduction of depreciation, interest and overhead.
4.	There are 9,646 parking spaces of which 2,290 are indoor and 7,356 are outdoor.
5.	32 per cent of the car parking spaces are allocated for non-public parking as follows: (i) 70 spaces indoors for tenants, $40 per month; (ii) 272 spaces outside for tenants, $25 per month; (iii) 2,037 spaces outside remote locations for tenants' employees, $5 per employee per month; (iv) 712 spaces for Crown employees, no charge.
6.	Present plans call for approximately 900 additional employee parking spaces by March 31, 1975 and 3,000 additional public parking spaces by March 31, 1976.
7.	The services are provided by Air Terminal Transport under an agreement with the Ministry of Transport. The ministry determines the standard and level of service and the fare to be charged.


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): 1.	At what level does the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport extend in relation to ferryboats operating on the St. Lawrence?
2.	Since 1968, what amount has been invested by the government on ferry services at (a) Matane-Godbout-Baie-Comeau (b) Rimouski-Forestville (c) Riviere-du-Loup-Saint-Simeon (d) Trois-Pistoles-Escoumins?
3.	If the government has jurisdiction of the service between Riviere-du Loup and Saint-Simeon, does it anticipate doubling the service?


John Mercer Reid: 1. The Ministry of Transport has at present no jurisdiction over the operational or financial aspects of the ferry services on the St. Lawrence, but does have, through acts and regulations responsibility for enforcement of procedures relating to matters such as navigation, ship safety, etc.
2. A grant of $6 million was provided to the province of Quebec in 1972 for the construction of a new ferry for the Matane-Godbout-Baie Comeau service, half from the Ministry of Transport and half from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. At that time the province took over responsibility for operating subsidies which had been provided by the CTC. The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: One of the services, namely the Riviere-du-Loup-Saint-Simeon, did receive a federal subsidy since 1968. The payments were as follows: 1968-69, $21,000; 1969-70, $21,000; 1970-71, $21,000; 1971-72, $21,000; total: $84,000. In so far as the Department of Public Works

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions
is concerned: (a) Matane-Godbout-Baie Comeau, $938,734.64; (b) Rimouski-Forestville, Nil; (c) Riviere-du-Loup-Saint-Simeon, $266,332.45; (d) Trois-Pistoles-Escoumins, $104,564.65.
3.	Not applicable (see answer to question 1).


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In order, what were the 25 topics most frequently arranged for discussion on CBC radio program "As It Happens" in the period May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 and how many times in that period was the discussion arranged on each topic listed?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows; In view of the workload involved, the CBC discussed this question with the hon. member who kindly agreed to an attempt by the Corporation to provide a satisfactory response based on a four-month period as opposed to the full year requested. As subsequently explained to the hon. member, however, efforts to meet the intent of the question have not been successful because the necessary information is not readily available and it would be time-consuming and costly to complete the research required on the part of program staff to establish a meaningful listing of topics.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What was (a) the date (b) the result of the last attempt by the government to secure from the Government of Great Britain the return to Canada of the Earnscliffe residence of Sir John A. Macdonald?
2.	On what date is it intended to initiate another attempt to have this historic Canadian house returned to Canadian control?
3.	If no such initiative is intended, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. While discussions have been held with the British authorities from time to time concerning Earnscliffe, the Canadian government has not attempted to acquire control of the property.
2.	At the present time, no plans exist to open discussions for the acquisition of this property.
3.	This historic building is being conscientiously maintained by the British High Commissioner. None the less, the government may wish to enter into discussions to acquire this property for the nation at some future time should an appropriate opportunity arise.


Mr. Gleave: Has any assistance or promotion been extended to Avis Car Rental agencies at Canadian airports by Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Air
Canada management advises as follows: Each year more and more passengers come to Air Canada for all elements of what is termed the "total travel experience"-an airline 
seat combined with a place to stay, a sight-seeing trip, a rental car, etc. As part of the activities being developed to satisfy this demand, the company has initiated a program whereby a passenger can, at the same time as making his flight arrangements, also reserve a rental car. Each of the three major rent-a-car firms in Canada (Tilden, Avis and Hertz) was approached regarding participation in this program. Proposals were reviewed and a complete plan selected which best satisfied Air Canada's commercial and service interests. The plan involves certain arrangements with Avis. However, these are non-exclusive; if the customer asks for a Tilden car or one from any other particular agency, an attempt is made to satisfy his request. Promotion of car rental agencies is done independently of this program. Avis is mentioned in Air Canada advertising material promoting travel tour programs in which Avis is participating, such as "Air Canada's Happy Holidays in Europe", and Tilden in programs such as "Beautiful British Columbia Bargain" and "Skifari".


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many Department of National Defence maintenance work and service work is carried on by term employees?
2.	Will the government give consideration to absorb such term employees with more than one year service into its indeterminate work force, to provide for such employees the same level of protection afforded to other public servants and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, how soon?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. As of July 1973: General Labour and Trades, 2,649; General Services, 910; Ship Repair, 1,266; total 4,825.
2. There is no policy or procedure at the present time which will permit the department to appoint a term employee to indeterminate status automatically after 12 months' employment. When an indeterminate position is to be filled, normally all term employees in the group and level of the position being filled will be considered. The decision as to which term employee is to be appointed is based on the merit principle as required by the Public Service Employment Act and Regulations. All unsuccessful term employees in the area of competition are then given right of appeal against the decision. The department has in the past several months reviewed the status of all term positions, and as a result of the study approximately 1,100 new permanent positions were created. These positions will be filled from the term employees in the department's work force. The department will continue this review with the object of keeping the requirement for term employment to a minimum level.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the policy of the Department of National Defence to extend the practice of subcontracting beyond the present level of subcontracts?


James Armstrong Richardson: The few service contracts National Defence places directly are for consultants, cleaning services, etc.,
October 15, 1973

and the department first examines whether its own personnel can do the work before arranging contracts. At this time, the department does not envisage any significant change in the amount of this type of work which will be carried out by its own employees and the amount contracted out to private industry.


Mr. Olaussen: 1.	Is it government policy to subsidize the employment of foreign nationals in Canada such as Germans, Austrians, Spaniards, Portuguese and Moroccans and, if so, does the policy prevent job opportunities for unemployed Canadians?
2.	Do these nationalities comprise the total crew of the coastal vessel Travetal and was this vessel guaranteed a five year subsidy amounting to $350,000?
3.	Before or after the decision was made to grant such a subsidy, did the government make any attempt to request the Canadian shipping industry to tender Canadian ships employing Canadian crews in the trade in which the Travetal is currently employed and, if so, what were (a) the names of the shipping companies which were contacted (b) the dates the shipping companies were contacted (c) the persons contacted (d) the subsidy made in each case9
4.	Was the Travetal initially permitted to enter the coasting trade of Canada because no suitable Canadian ships were available and, if so, what is the definition of a suitable ship for this trade?
5.	Will the government undertake to transfer the existing subsidy and other assistance allowance, if any, to the owner of any Canadian ship when such ship becomes available and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Were the Canadian vessels OK Service and Federal Hudson and their crews replaced with the vessel Travetal and its crew and, if so, is it the intention of the government to assist the owners and employees of these Canadian vessels and, if no assistance is planned, are there any assistance programs for which the owners and employees of these vessels would qualify?
7.	For what reasons are the Travetal and similar vessels permitted permanent entry into the coasting trade of Canada and do they contravene the provisions of the Alien Labour Act?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Canadian Transport Commission, and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. It is not the policy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to subsidize the employment of foreign nationals in Canada.
2.	No.
3.	A careful scrutiny of the List of Shipping failed to reveal the existence of a suitable vessel under Canadian flag.
4.	Yes; there was not any roll-on/roll-off end-loader vessel available under Canadian flag.
5.	This is a hypothetical question.
6.	No.
7.	Under Section 662 of the Canada Shipping Act the Minister of National Revenue has no option but to issue a Coasting License, upon application, to a foreign-built, British registered ship upon which the duty has been paid. The Travetal is registered in Singapore and is owned in the United Kingdom thus qualifying as a British regis-
Order Paper Questions
tered ship. Full duty was paid in Halifax in the spring of 1972. Such vessels are subject to all generally applicable legislation. (The Alien Act does not come under the purview of the Department of National Revenue.)


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to give priority to initiating consultations with the government of the United States as to what the probable use of the two icebreakers of 60,000 plus horsepower that the United States Coast Guard and Department of Transport have under construction in Seattle, Washington will be in terms of precise areas and, if not, for what reason?


Jean Marchand: Not
required at this time as it is not considered to be necessary.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the names of the officials of the government who have visited Lockheed Shipbuilding of Seattle, Washington, with respect to the two polar icebreakers being built there, as indicated would be done in response to Question No. 1,901, Part 6?
2.	What has been the result of such consultation in terms of probable area of use for such vessels, specifically, will these vessels be used in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago?


Jean Marchand: 1. Captain I. Green and Mr. R. A. Lawrence of Canadian Coast Guard and Mr. R. Gilbert of the Department of Supply and Services.
2. It is our understanding that these vessels will be used in Antarctic and Alaskan waters.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the government of the United States given assurances to the government that the two polar icebreakers under construction by Lockheed Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. of Seattle, Washington will not be employed in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago?
2.	Have such assurances been sought by the government and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what dates?


Jean Marchand: 1. No.
2. Not considered necessary at this time.


Mr. Forrestall: With respect to response to Question No. 1,901, Part 7 and in the light of the U.S. Polar icebreaker construction program to be completed in three years, for what reason are Canadian plans for Canadian polar icebreaker capability not being altered or accelerated?


Jean Marchand: Plans were accelerated but this was not related to the U.S. program. We became aware of possible ore and other

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Arctic developments moving ahead which might require the support services of a polar icebreaker and we directed our program towards being able to provide the necessary capability.


Mr. Hellyer: Has "La Ligue des droits de l'homme" of Montreal received any financial assistance from the government since January 1, 1972 under the Local Initiatives Program, the Opportunities for Youth or any other federal program and, if so, on what dates and in what amounts?


John Mercer Reid: The Local Initiatives Program and the Opportunities for Youth did not make any grant to this project since January 1, 1972. However, the following amounts were given to "La Ligue des droits de l'homme": Secretary of State Department, September 11,
1972,	$10,000; Secretary of State Department, February 13,
1973,	$7,000; Canada Council, March 28, 1973, $23,000.


Mr. Nowlan: By federal constituency in the province of Nova Scotia for the 1973 period (a) how many applications for OFY grants were received (b) how many projects were approved (c) what was the total amount in dollars involved (d) how many man-weeks of employment were generated by the projects approved?


James Hugh Faulkner: (a) A
list of all projects funded under the 1973 Opportunities for Youth Program has been compiled. Projects are classified by provinces and in alphabetical order of the towns and localities in which projects are being carried out, not by constituency. Information includes the project title and number, a short description of the project's activities, amount of the grant, number of participants and the name and address of the project representative. This listing has been circulated to members of parliament. The number of applications received from the Province of Nova Scotia for OFY grants in 1973 was 549; (b) 260; (c) and (d) $1,646,509, providing 18,455 man-weeks of employment.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the province of Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: The Department of Justice does not maintain names and addresses of lawyers who have acted as legal agents by reference to electoral boundaries; nor does it maintain a list of lawyers retained for future work since lawyers are not so retained. The names and addresses of all lawyers who appear in the records of the Department of Justice as having performed legal services on behalf of the Minister of Justice in the province of Prince Edward Island for the period April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973 are set forth in the following list;
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier).J
Bell, Morley, Summerside; Ghiz, J. A., Charlottetown; Large, Frederick A., Charlottetown; MacDonald G. Bruce, Summerside; MacDonald, Kennedy R., Montague; MacCl-eod, Summerside; McMahon George R., Summerside; Mull-aly, George J., Charlottetown; O'Donnell Lester, Charlottetown; Sigsworth, D.F., Charlottetown; Tweedy, G. G., Charlottetown.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the Province of Manitoba?


Otto Emil Lang: The Department of Justice does not maintain names and addresses of lawyers who have acted as legal agents by reference to electoral boundaries; nor does it maintain a list of lawyers retained for future work since lawyers are not so retained. The names and addresses of all lawyers who appear in the records of the Department of Justice as having performed legal services on behalf of the Minister of Justice in the province of Manitoba for the period April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973 are set forth in the following list: Bromley, Paul H., Winnipeg; Dewar, A. S., Winnipeg; Dilts, Gordon C., Winnipeg; Ferg, Patrick, Flin Flon; Margolis, David, Winnipeg.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the province of Newfoundland?


Otto Emil Lang: The Department of Justice does not maintain names and addresses of lawyers who have acted as legal agents by reference to electoral boundaries; nor does it maintain a list of lawyers retained for future work since lawyers are not so retained. The names and addresses of all lawyers who appear in the records of the Department of Justice as having performed legal services on behalf of the Minister of Justice in the province of Newfoundland for the period April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973 are set forth in the following list: Adams, W. G., St. John's; Aylward, Fintan J., St. John's; Barry, Leo D., St. John's; Barlett & Co., St. John's; Barlett, Rupert W., St. John's; Carter, Alan William, St. John's; Clarke, George W., St. John's; Curtis, Dawe & Fagan, St. John's; Fowler, F. P., St. John's; Hawco, L. C., Corner Brook; Lewis, Aylward & Crosbie, St. John's; Lewis, P. D., St. John's; Martin, Easton, Woolridge, Corner Brook; Mat-tews, Claude, Grand falls; Sparkes David B., St. John's; Wells Clyde, Corner Brook.
October 15, 1973


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the province of New Brunswick?


Otto Emil Lang: The Department of Justice does not maintain names and addresses of lawyers who have acted as legal agents by reference to electoral boundaries; nor does it maintain a list of lawyers retained for future work since lawyers are not so retained. The names and addresses of all lawyers who appear in the records of the Department of Justice as having performed legal services on behalf of the Minister of Justice in the Province of New Brunswick for the period April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973 are set forth in the following list. Abbis, Chaiker, Edmunston; Appleby Olmstead & Quinn, Fredericton; Barry, John P., St. John; Bill, Edward, St. Andrews; Brison, Emery Charles, Moncton; Burchell, William, Newcastle; Casey, Gerald T., St. John; Chiasson, Paul-Emile, Bathurst; Cyr, L. H. Leonide, Moncton; Drummie, Thomas D., St. John; Godin, Gerard, Shippegan; Gorman, Patrick G., St. John: Harrigan, A.G., St. John; Messrs Hoyt & Dixon, Fredericton; Hoyt, W. L., Fredericton; Hughes, David G., Fredericton; Keating, Lloyd E., Moncton; Lahey, Edward J., St. John; Lampert, Irwin, Moncton; Leblanc, Bernard, Moncton; Lebouthillier, Alie A., Caraquet; Leger, Frankling O., St. John; Lordon, Paul, Newcastle; McGin-ley, Eugene, Fredericton; McNair, John C., Fredericton; Maddox, Paul B., Woodstock; Malone, Brian, Fredericton; Meldrum, W. W., Sackville; Michaud, Leblanc & Robi-chaud, Buctouche; Mitton, Irving G., Moncton; Mitton, Myron, Moncton; Purnell & Brien, St. John; Purnell, Lyman F. D., Sussex; Radford, R. E., Moncton; Clarence Roy, Moncton; Roy & Lasier, Moncton; Tingley, Richard J., Campbellton.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the province of Nova Scotia?


Otto Emil Lang: The Department of Justice does not maintain names and addresses of lawyers who have acted as legal agents by reference to electoral boundaries; nor does it maintain a list of lawyers retained for future work since lawyers are not so retained. The names and addresses of all lawyers who appear in the records of the Department of Justice as having performed legal services on behalf of the Minister of Justice in the Province of Nova Scotia for the period April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973 are set forth in the following list: Akerman, John R., Truro; Allaby, V. B., Lunenburg; Brown, David E., Halifax; Burchell, C. D. Sydney; Clements, Lester L., Liverpool; Clements, S. Ford, Liverpool; Crowell, Kenneth L., Middleton; Eaton, K.E., Halifax; Fergeson, Robert F., Sydney; Flinn, Edward J., Halifax; Fowke, Fred, El., Bridgewater; Fraser, D. J., Yarmouth; Grant, C. Wilkie, Guysborough; Hackett, James G. North Sydney; Hall, Donald M., Berwick; Hicks, E. Claire, Amherst; Kennedy,
Order Paper Questions
J. P., Bridgewater; Kennedy, Kendall J., Bridgewater; Lawrence, William R., Windsor; Leblanc, Arthur, Fort Hawkesbury; McCunn, R. F. River Philip; McDonald Ian, Yarmouth; McDonnell, Hugh J., New Glasgow; MacGilliv-ray, A. Boyd, Yarmouth; Mclnnis, A. D., Antigonish; Macl-saac, John, Halifax; MacClellan, J. Alexander, Kentville; Nichols, D. Arthur, Truro; Nichols, John R., Digby; Parker, T. Robert, New Glasgow; Pink, Irving C., Yarmouth; Richard, K. Peter, Antigonish; Rogers, R. M., Digby; Rosen-blum, C. M., Sydney; Ryan, Murray J., North Sydney; Saumuers, E. R., Lunenburg; Tramble, T. Daniel, Antigonish; Winters, Robert, J., Truro.


Mr. Cossitt: What lawyers who practice in Metropolitan Toronto were selected by the Minister of Justice for government legal work during the past fiscal year and how much money was paid in the way of fees to each such person during the past fiscal year?


Otto Emil Lang: The lawyers practising in Metropolitan Toronto whose names appear listed below were engaged as legal agents to act on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada from time to time during the period April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973. The aggregate amount for the year, paid to each, is set opposite their respective names. Bowman, D. G. H., $20,112,11; Charlton, W. G., $450.00; Curran, Lyle F., $230.00; Decory, Peter, $7,192.50; Fashen & Calvin, $3,759.47; Hansberger, John D., $4,055.88; Laidlaw, Douglas K., $14,699.77; MacLean, Ken & Lyons, $5,576.88; Sedgwick, Joseph, $3,000.00; Sexton, J. E., $6,050.71; Talsky Marvin, $13.43; Williston, Walter B., $40,494.81.


Mr. Cossitt: What lawyers who practice in city of Ottawa were selected by the Minister of Justice for government legal work during the past fiscal year and how much money was paid in the way of fees to each such person during the past fiscal year?


Otto Emil Lang: 
Mr. Forrestall: Will the government give urgent consideration to initiating international discussions to provide for a standardization of design and construction of external adaptors to submersible vessels to ensure universal ability to service any such vessel in terms

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions
of life extension and preservation pending delayed rescue, in the event that such vessels would become endangered outside the area of possible operational rescue ability of the nation to which such vessels would be registered, or in whose waters they would normally be operating?


John Mercer Reid: The Ministry of Transport has representation on an international committee which was created to deal with technical matters concerning subm-ersibles, under the auspices of the American Bureau of Shipping. This committee feels that it would be premature to attempt to lay down specific rules for the design and construction of submersibles at this time. However, a guide for the classification of manned submersibles has been prepared for use during the interim period preceding accumulation of actual operating experience in order to make information available and to discuss the basic considerations for safety and reliability without tending to hamper future developments. The question of standardization of external adaptors will be raised in committee. In so far as military submersible vessels are concerned, the Department of National Defence conforms to the international standards contained in a Standard NATO Agreement entitled "Adaptors for supply of high pressure air to sunken NATO Submarines".


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Will the government ensure that no submersible vessel of any type is ever employed within waters inside the jurisdictional purview of the government that does not have at least one internal emergency back-up method of life preservation and extension, other than just escape capability, to permit delayed rescue in the event of underwater entrapment?
2.	Will the government give the highest priority to such absolutely mandatory requirements, in the light of recent demonstration of technological fallibility in the United States?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Ministry of Transport is aware that there may well be a need for some form of internal emergency back-up system of life preservation to form part of the safety equipment for any submersible required by the Canada Shipping Act to be inspected and certificated. The technical feasibility of such a system, particularly with smaller submersibles where limited space is one of the critical factors, requires further study.
2.	The priority given to this subject must depend on the need for regulations and requirements in other aspects of safety of life at sea and pollution prevention.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Will the government ensure that no submersible vessel of any type is ever employed within waters under the jurisdictional purview of IGie government that does not have multiple external fittings designed to permit the preservation and extension of life, in terms of air adaptors, voice communications and food passages, in the event of underwater entrapment?

2.	Will the government give the highest priority to such absolutely mandatory requirements, in the light of recent demonstration of technological fallibility in the United States?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
technical feasibility of whether such adaptors should be fitted on all submersibles required by the Canada Shipping Act to be inspected and certificated will be thoroughly investigated.
2.	The priority given to this subject must depend on the need for regulations and requirements in other aspects of safety of life at sea and pollution prevention.


Mr. Forrestall: Does every Canadian-owned or leased submersible vessel, including mini-subs, conventional submarines and diving bells have more than one essential life preserving and/or escape capability and, if not, which ones are so lacking and for what reason?


John Mercer Reid: The Ministry of Transport does not have details of all Canadian-owned or leased submersibles as not all are required to be inspected under the Canada Shipping Act due to their small gross tonnage. Those on which we do have information have more than one life preserving and/or escape capability. In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, escape from the conventional military submarines of the Canadian Forces can be achieved by successive use by the crew of the two single-man escape towers fitted, or by use of a McCann Bell carried by USN submarine rescue ships. The "O" class submarines are also being modified to be capable of receiving the USN Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle. SDL-1 has three separate sources of air that will support six men for an approximate total of 90 hours. It may also achieve positive buoyancy in four different ways and escape can be achieved through the lock-out compartment as long as the depth is not excessive.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the present government capability to provide emergency rescue facilities and capability in the event of entrapment or malfunction of submersible vessels operating within the purview of Canadian jurisdiction?


James Armstrong Richardson: The government capability to provide emergency rescue facilities, in the event of a submersible vessel mishap, is provided on the east coast by the Department of National Defence submersible SDL-1 and on the west coast by the Department of the Environment submersible Pisces IV. If required either submersible can be air-lifted from either one coast to the other to facilitate or augment rescue activities.
October 15, 1973


Mr. Forrestall: Does the government anticipate receiving from the Federal Republic of Germany, of from firms based therein, in (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975 a detailed proposal for ore carriers with Arctic ice capability and, if so, from what firm or firms is this expected?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
No; (b) no; (c) no.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the government indicated to Canadian industry its interest in proposals for ore carriers with polar capability?
2.	Has the government sought from Canadian interests such proposals and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) from what specific firms (iii) in what manner was the invitation extended (b) if not, for what reason?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Ministry of Transport has indicated to Canadian industries its interest in learning the types and numbers of vessels that could prove most suitable for potential Arctic ore trades.
2.	No; (b) the Ministry of Transport has not sought proposals from Canadian industries on ore carriers with polar capability because it does not contemplate entering the ore trade. Its officials have, however, discussed in conceptual terms various ideas on ore carriers on various occasions with representatives of naval architectural firms, Canadian and foreign operating companies and other interested marine groups.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the specific plans for developing an underwater capability for Maritime Command, north of 60 degrees parallel?
2.	On what date can these plans be expected to be in operational phase, or when will the first of any new series of underwater vessels be put into service?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 and 2. Maritime Command submarines now operate in some waters north of 60 degrees north latitude during certain times of the year. Whether or not this underwater capability will be enhanced or expanded is dependent upon staff studies now in progress.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the specific plans for developing a surface capability for Maritime Command, exclusive of aerial reconnaissance, north of 60 degrees parallel?
2.	On what date can these plans be expected to be put into operational phase, or when will the first surface vessels be in service?
Order Paper Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 and 2. Maritime Command surface ships now operate in some waters north of 60 degrees north latitude during certain times of the year. Whether or not this surface capability will be enhanced or expanded is dependent upon staff studies now in progress.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is consideration being given to Maritime Command capability north of 60 degrees parallel and, if so, in what substantive form?
2.	If there is present capacity, what is it, exclusive of Canadian Coast Guard capability as listed in response to Question No. 1,900?
3.	If there is no existing capability for operations north of 60 degrees parallel, for what reason?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. As a result of the guidelines set forth in "Defence in the 70s", Canada's military maritime force requirements are under review to ensure that the Maritime Command has the capability to meet its assigned roles.
2.	Ships of Maritime Command are capable of operating north of 60 degrees north latitude during certain times of the year; aircraft at all times.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Forrestall: Are all Department of Transport vessels assigned to Canadian Coast Guard service and, if not, which ones are not so assigned, and for what reason?


Jean Marchand: All vessels owned by the Ministry of Transport are operated by the Canadian Coast Guard with the exception of ferries and coasting vessels owned by the ministry and operated by Canadian National Railways. It should be noted that Schedule C and D Corporations reporting to the Minister of Transport operate their own craft.


Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain): 1.	What actions that specifically promote the use of recycled paper have been undertaken by the government in the past five years?
2.	Have any new initiatives been undertaken in 1973 and, if so, what are they?
3.	Does the government have a policy that specifies a certain percentage of all paper ordered is recycled paper and (a) if so, on what date was such a policy effected (b) if not, is it the intention of the government to undertake such a policy?
4.	Has the government held any meetings with the publishing industry with regard to the use of recycled paper and, if not, are any meetings planned in this regard?
5.	Has the government considered making incentives of any type available for those firms and organizations that use recycled paper?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: 1.
Prior to undertaking specific action to promote use of

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions
recycled paper, the government feels it necessary to consider what disadvantages there may be which would offset any assumed benefits, particularly the implications for primary manufacturers, the effects on employment distribution, any possible additional pollution or environmental hazards, and the acceptability and costs of products made from recycled materials.
2.	During 1973, as part of the prior investigation, a study has been completed by the Economics Institute of the Canadian Forestry Service of the Department of the Environment relating to Consumption of Paper Stock in Canada. This report will be released for publication later in the year. It is the first of a series intended to gather essential information and statistics prerequisite to formulation of any recycling policy. This work also parallels major studies being undertaken by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce relating to the Forest Products Industry. Investigation of the economics and technical capabilities for paper recycling in Canada is also being undertaken internally within the Environmental Protection Service (Solid Waste Management Division) of the Department of the Environment conjointly with these other groups.
3.	The government does not specify any percentage of recycled paper in its orders for products. Products containing recycled material are accepted provided they meet the other specified requirements, (a) not applicable; (b) it is intended to formulate a policy when sufficient is known regarding the matters raised in answer to the first question.
4.	No.
5.	No.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	What is the port of registry of CN chartered vessel Princess of Tasmania?
2.	What is the name of the company who owns this vessel?
3.	Who are the registered owners or shareholders of this company?
4.	What was the cost to the government of the renovations to this vessel?
5.	What is the actual cost of the charter in Canadian funds?
6.	What is the purchase price of the vessel?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
port of registry of the Princess of Tasmania is London, England.
2.	She is owned by the Bahamarine Limited.
3.	Bahamarine Limited of Nassau, Bahamas, are the registered owners, and while we do not have a full listing of the shareholders, the controlling interest in the company is held by Mr. W. Vandersteel and Mr. R. H. Imlah, President and Vice President respectively, of Ampower Corporation of New Jersey, U.S.A.
4.	The cost to the government of the renovations to this vessel amounted to $520,000.
5.	The charter costs $1,397 per day.
6.	At the time the vessel became available, the firm sale price was stated as $1,750,000.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to answer to Question No, 1,900 and the indication therein that it was intended to upgrade the capability of said vessel in 1973-74, what is the present status of such upgrading of the CCGS Labrador in terms of amount budgeted for upgrading and percentage of such work completed as of June 30, 1973?
2.	On what date will such work be completed on the CCGS Labrador?
3.	Since commencement of upgrading of CCGS Labrador, how many work stoppages have occurred, for what reasons and for what durations?
4.	Does the government intend to complete such upgrading as indicated would be done to CCGS Labrador in response to Question No, 1,900 and, if not, for what reason?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
upgrading program for CCGS Labrador involves two phases. Phase 1, the repowering, has been budgeted at $300,000. As of June 30, 1973, 95 per cent of this work had been completed and 85 per cent of the funds expended. Phase II is upgrading and mordernizing the ship's accomodation. This project is budgeted at $1,300,000.
2.	Phase I has been completed. It is anticipated that a contract will be let for phase II by the end of January 1974.
3.	No work stoppages have occurred since the commencement of the upgrading program.
4.	Yes, the government intends to complete the upgrading as it indicated would be done in its response to Question No. 1,900.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to requiring air carriers and air carrier suppliers to establish training programs ensuring the safe carriage and handling of hazardous materials,?


Jean Marchand: No. To date, the handling of radioactive materials for shipment by aircraft has not been a problem. However this ministry is aware of the developments in this matter in the U.S.A. and is reviewing existing controls in the handling of all hazardous materials, including those which have radioactive properties.


Mr. Godin: What were the average amounts paid to the residents of the expropriated areas of (a) Shannon, Quebec, for the expansion of the Valcartier Base (b) Ste. Scholastique for the Mirabel Airport (c) Toronto for the Pickering Airport?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: (a) $13,757. This figure represents the average amount paid to all owners. All but one were residents and all but one have accepted final settlement, (b) $30,615. This figure represents the average amount paid up to July 1, 1973, to all owners, lessees and other interests. Amounts paid only to residents cannot readily be supplied from existing records. Final settlement is not yet completed in 360 cases, (c) $72,615. This figure represents the average amount
October 15, 1973

paid up to July 13, 1973, to all owners and lessees, but excluding mortgagees. Under the new Expropriation Act, mortgagees are paid separately from owners. Amounts paid only to residents cannot readily be supplied from existing records. No final settlements have yet been made.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) On what date was the contract let to a bus line to carry passengers to and from Victoria to Victoria International Airport (b) what bus line was awarded the contract?
2.	For what duration was the contract?
3.	How many companies tendered for the contract?
4.	On what date will requests for tenders be invited for renewal of the contract?
5.	If the contract was negotiated in perpetuity, what provisions did it contain for adjustments to take account of (a) increased traffic (b) increases in operating costs?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
C&C Transportation Company Limited provided ground transportation between Victoria International Airport and the city of Victoria from 1951 to August 14, 1968, at which time it assigned its interests to Vancouver Island Transportation Company Limited. This Company has provided the service since that date.
2.	The licence is on a year to year basis, cancellable on thirty days' notice.
3.	The contract was not tendered as no other party registered an interest in providing the service.
4.	Vancouver Island Transportation Company Limited is providing a satisfactory service, and as no interest has been registered by any other party, the ministry has no plans at this time for calling tenders.
5.	The contract was not negotiated in perpetuity. The company pays the ministry a percentage of gross revenue. Increase in passenger traffic therefore results in increased revenue to the ministry. Operating costs are reflected in passenger fares which are approved by the provincial licensing authorities.
LAC MfeGANTIC AIRPORT


Mr. Latulippe: Does the Department of Transport have plans for the Lac Megantic Airport and, if so, what ones and at what cost?


Jean Marchand: The
airport is operated by the town of Lac Megantic. Provision has been made in the department's 1973-74 Airport Financial Assistance Policy program for the department to contribute 90 per cent of the cost, up to a maximum of $110,000, of constructing a 3,000, x 75' gravel runway.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1. Is it the intention of the government to twin the Trans-Canada Highway inside the gates of Banff National Park?
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) Has there been an announcement in the past two years of an intention to twin that portion of the highway and, if so (i) by whom (ii) on what date (b) for what reason is the decision being reconsidered (c) on what date did reconsideration begin?
3.	On what date does the government anticipate making a firm announcement concerning the possibility of twinning that part of the highway?
4.	What alternatives to twinning that portion of the highway are being considered?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
A final decision to twin the highway has not yet been taken.
2.	(a) An item for twinning the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff appeared in the Department of Public Works' estimates for the years ending March 31, 1973 and 1974. On February 10, 1972, Mr. Allan Sulatycky, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, did touch on the subject at a Calgary news conference; (i) See 2 (a); (ii) See 2 (a), (b) The final decision is dependent on a number of influencing factors including environmental impact considerations. (c) After consideration of the consultants pilot report on the environmental impact for the first eight miles in 1972, it was decided to have the consultants conduct a detailed study and prepare a report covering the full section under consideration from the Banff East Gate to the junction of the Icefields Parkway. This report has not yet been received by the federal government.
3.	When all studies have been completed and assessed, a decision will be made and an appropriate announcement will be forthcoming, probably early next year.
4.	Alternates include the development of other corridors (both existing and new) and possible increased utilization of other modes of transport within a corridor. The evaluation of these alternatives is being undertaken by a group of several federal departments (MOT, DINA and DPW) and the provincial governments of British Columbia and Alberta who provide the facilities that complement the one in question.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since November 27, 1972, the date the government paid the E.B. Eddy Company 24 million dollars for its plant in Hull, has the Company paid any rent to carry on its operations and, if so, how much does the Company pay per month?


John Mercer Reid: In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned; Since November 27, 1972, the E.B. Eddy Company has paid no rent on the 44 acres of Hull property acquired from the company by the NCC. In addition to continued operations on its remaining property, the company also continues to operate the Ground wood Mill on approximately 2 'A acres of property acquired by NCC. As allowed by the terms of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale NCC has granted an extension to October 1, 1974 for demolition of this mill and rental charges are not applicable. To enable the continued operations of the company, the agreement provides that for a period of up to 10 years after the closing date of the agreement, employees of the company will have access to and use of a parking area on land acquired by the NCC.

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions
This land is available without cost for the first two years. Thereafter rental charge will be applicable. In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, the department receives the following rentals from E.B. Eddy Company: 1. Steam line under Chaudiere Bridge, $1 per annum; 2. Right of Way reserve, Chaudiere Island, $96 per annum; 3. Rental of parcel of land, Union Bridge (Chaudiere), $40.20 per annum; 4. Rental of Hydraulic lots B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J., Chaudiere Island, $900 per annum.


Mr. Nesdoly: 1.	Was the rapeseed market manipulated in June, 1973 and, if so, by whom?
2.	Who is making the profit on recent price increases in rapeseed?
3.	Who is paying the elevator companies 4'A cents storage per bushel per month on rapeseed held in storage?
4.	Are bushels of rapeseed being deliberately held off the market for the sole purpose of collecting storage and, if so, how many?
5.	(a) Who owns the rapeseed that the elevator companies buy from the producers (b) who puts up the money for these purchases?
6.	(a) What was the export price of rapeseed on June 21, 1973 (b) what price was paid to farmers on that date?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. There is no evidence of any manipulation of the rapeseed market in June, 1973. Rapeseed is bought and sold on the open market on the basis of prices determined through the operation of the cash and futures markets of the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.
2.	The price increases for rapeseed in June were caused by a world shortage of oilseeds and products, lack of fishmeal production in Peru and the placing of export controls on oilseeds and products by the United States and Canada. Producers, exporters and elevator companies had equal opportunities to increase their profits.
3.	The major role of the country elevator is to buy rapeseed from the producer, assemble it for shipment to ports of exit and load it into rail cars. The price paid by the elevators is known as the street price. Street prices are established by two committees, one in Calgary and one in Winnipeg, reflecting the fact that rapeseed may be shipped through either Thunder Bay or Vancouver. The street price committees establish the daily street price (the price the producer receives at the country elevator) by assessing various factors influencing the delivery of clean rapeseed from the country to export position: rail car availability, cleaning capacity, estimated delivery date. The time allowed is normally 60 days for Thunder Bay and 90 days for Vancouver. A corresponding futures month is then selected for price determination. An operating margin is calculated, allowing for carrying costs and all the costs involved in moving grain from the country elevator to export position, which is deducted from the futures price to arrive at the street price (price paid to producer). The price for any specific country point is determined by deducting freight using established rates. Therefore, costs are borne indirectly by the producer.
4.	The producer could hold back his rapeseed from the market hoping to receive a higher price. Rapeseed is not

held by the elevator to collect extra handling and storage charges.
5.	(a) When the producer sells to the elevator, the rapeseed becomes the property of the elevator; (b) normal business financing by grain companies purchasing the rapeseed from the producer.
6.	(a) The export price on June 21 at Thunder Bay was $6 per bushel. Price paid to the producer in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan on June 21 was $5,491/2 per bushel. The export price on June 21 in Vancouver was $6.20 per bushel. The price paid to the producer in west Saskatchewan and Alberta was $5.68 to $5.70 per bushel.


Mr. Jarvis: 1.	Is the Blue Walleye fish extinct and, if not, what would be the estimate of the Department of the Environment of the number of such fish alive in Canadian inland water?
2.	Subsequent to the Federal-Provincial Ministerial Conference, January 20 to 24, 1964, what action, policies and programs have been implemented by the government to combat the depletion in numbers of Blue Walleye fish?
3.	How does the government determine whether a specific species of fish is increasing or decreasing in numbers, and what action is taken when it is determined that a species is decreasing substantially in numbers thereby creating the possibility of extinction of the species?


John (Jack) Davis: 1 and 2. The Blue Walleye is not extinct but is indeed extremely rare in what was always a very limited area; namely, Lake Erie and the adjacent part of Lake Ontario near the Niagara River. Some of these fish, which are a colour variety of the more common and widespread yellow walleye, are in captivity in hatcheries, in an attempt to preserve them from extinction. The success of this program must, of course, await the test of time. The federal Government is cooperating with the U.S., through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and hence also with the province of Ontario and the Great Lakes states, in a program aimed at rehabilitation of walleye in general in Lake Erie.
3.	The usual evidence of increasing or decreasing abundance of fish is through increasing or decreasing catches by either sport or commercial fishermen. The action taken in the case of a large and serious decrease depends upon the cause of the decrease, if this can be found. If the decrease is due to excessive fishery exploitation, the attempted remedy takes the form of fishery regulations as seem most appropriate to the situation. Examples would be, catch quotas, size limits, closed seasons and hatchery procedures. If the cause seems to be environmental, as may be at least partly the case in Lake Erie, the road back could be very long or in some cases impossible.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is the Minister of the Environment going to issue licences under the provisions of the Migratory Birds Protection Act for the shooting of robins and other migratory birds in New Brunswick?
2.	Has the Minister received representations against the issue of such licences?
October 15, 1973

3.	What alternative means has the Department considered which might protect blueberry crops and yet avoid the necessity of killing birds?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. 1. No permits were issued in 1973 under Section 26 of the Migratory Birds Regulations for the shooting of robins in New Brunswick.
2.	Yes.
3.	This is a complex matter and no single alternative will likely be successful. Among the alternatives being considered and tested are the use of lure crops, acetylene exploders to simulate the sound of shotgun shells, special exploding shells that sound like a shotgun but are not lethal, and close supervision and inspection of harvestable fields by enforcement personnel of the CWS and provincial game branch.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Minister of National Defence state that Royal Roads Military College would be expanded and improved, at a cost of several million dollars and, if so (a) what year is the work expected to start (b) what year is the work expected to be completed (c) is any money set aside in the 1973-74 Estimates for this work and (i) if so, how much (ii) if not, on what date is it likely to appear in the Estimates?


James Armstrong Richardson: As announced in Vancouver on July 13, 1973, there will be substantially increased capital expenditures for Royal Roads Military College, near Victoria, to place this western military college on an even footing with the Royal Military College at Kingston and College Militaire Royal at St. Jean, Quebec.
A new library, costing approximately $1 million, is included in the program. The exact figure for the total program has not yet been determined but it will amount to several million dollars, (a) Work will begin on the library in 1973 and (b) the library is expected to be completed by 1977. During preparation of 1973-74 estimates (c) (i) no expenditure was planned in 1973-74 for Royal Roads; (ii) major expenditures will begin in 1974-75 and will be included in estimates for that year.


Mr. Marshall: Under the Fishing Vessel Inspection scheme, will foreign fishing protection officers from vessels fishing in Canadian waters be allowed to board Canadian vessels to inspect in Canadian waters?


John (Jack) Davis: No. Canadian fishing vessels will not be required to submit to inspection by foreign inspectors inside Canadian territorial waters.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond): Order Paper Questions
1.	Was Mr. Gerald Hartley under contract to the Cape Breton Development Corporation and, if so (a) for what period (b) at what salary?
2.	What were the conditions of his separation from the Corporation?
3.	Did Mr. Hartley receive any separation pay?
4.	Was Mr. Hartley given any paper(s) of recommendation at the time of his separation and, if so (a) who authorized same (b) who signed it?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No.
2.	A result of organization change.
3.	Yes.
4.	No, though such would have been given if requested.


Mr. Forrestall: Has the government considered published data by Sunoco E and P Limited of Calgary with respect to tests carried out in the winter of 1971-1972 at Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories on hovercraft, which indicated a clear ability of such air cushion vehicles to cause ice failure or to break ice successfully up to a depth of 27 inches and, if so, will the government consider and undertake to commission an independent outside study on the possibilities of this craft with respect to (a) general capability of the craft as a light icebreaker (b) areas of possible use, such as in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence system, Gulf and East Coast ports up to north of 60 degrees (c) cost-benefit study including performance and cost comparisons with conventional ice breakers employed in similar areas (d) capability of the craft as a utility vehicle (e) advisability of purchasing suitable air cushion vehicles for proper testing and/or designing prototypes for primary use as ice breakers and service craft (f) other related matters?


Jean Marchand: Published data with respect to tests carried out by Sunoco E and P Limited in which an air cushion vehicle broke ice up to a depth of 27 inches has been actively considered by the government, and has formed the basis for subsequent tests. The Ministry of Transport and the Departments of Indian and Northern Affairs, Environment and Public Works conducted further tests with this vehicle in the winter of 1972-73 at Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T. in which the available thickness of ice of 22 inches was broken at about four miles per hour. Further limited tests using a smaller air cushion vehicle were also conducted at Montreal, and corroborated the previous results. Both these vehicles are of the non-self-propelled type and for the purposes of the tests were moved by winches. An interdepartmental working group with representation from the Ministry of Transport, National Research Council, Departments of Environment and Industry, Trade and Commerce has been studying the further application of air cushion technology to icebreaking. Independent studies have been carried out to investigate making non-self-propelled air cushion vehicles self-propelled, and also the design parameters of an air cushion vehicle specifically for icebreaking. There are technical problems to be overcome in providing effective means of self-propulsion, and these are being actively investigated. The mechanism by which ice is broken with air cushion technology is not fully understood and consideration is being given for study to be commissioned in order to identify the significant factors involved, to optimize any future designs. This study will consist of

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions
theoretical analysis followed by model work. In parallel with this, further government trials are planned for the winter of 1973-74, involving the use of five different vehicles, including self-propelled air cushion vehicles to broaden the spectrum of practical knowledge. With the knowledge gained from the 1973-74 series of trials and the theoretical study, the government should be in a position in the spring of 1974 to consider the full implications, which are believed to be very significant, of this new form of icebreaking. Also at that time consideration will be given to the further action which may be necessary to realize, as soon as possible, the full potential of this unexpected application of air cushion technology. This action may include commissioning an independent design study for an air cushion icebreaker, the manufacture of a prototype of such a vehicle and the identification of geographical areas where the technology could be applied.


Mr. Forrestall: Has the government considered the United States defence and transport studies on the utilizations of air cushion vehicles as replacements for fleet units up to the level of light cruiser and, if so, will the government undertake to commission an independent, outside study of the potential of this type of vehicle with particular reference to (a) seagoing abilities in all types of seas, together with strengths and weaknesses and possible solutions to deficiencies (b) the ability to effectively handle various weapon and detection systems (c) the ability to effectively contain attack (d) a cost benefit analysis study in relation to present and anticipated operations (e) the ability to function in various geographic areas such as the Polar areas and the Tropics (f) the feasibility of constructing a prototype in Canada designed specifically to meet Canadian defence requirements and as a possible item for export sale?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, it is DND policy to continuously monitor studies conducted by other nations regarding all forms of equipment and vehicles that may have a military application. Canada is represented on several NATO and other Information Exchange Groups through which such information is passed. NDHQ staff officers are presently studying the numbers and types of vessels best suited to meet the requirements of Maritime Command within that Command's sphere of responsibility. With regard to the commissioning of an independent, outside study, it is considered that qualified expertise exists within the department to conduct such a study.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	(a) Is the government, through the Department of the Environment, participating in testing the effects of INCO's "super stack" at Copper Cliff, Ontario and if so, with whom is the Department participating in such testing (b) what role is INCO playing in this testing vis a vis facilities, manpower, etc ?
2.	(a) If the Department is participating with any other agency or agencies in such testing, how was the competency of the participating agency or agencies established (b) will the Department agree to submit its findings for corroboration by analysis of the third sample (c) will the Department permit interim reports on its findings to the public?


John (Jack) Davis: 1. (a)
Yes, with the Ontario Air Management Branch; (b) nil, except providing parking facilities for mobile equipment.
2.	(a) The competency of the Ontario Air Management Branch is generally recognized as being the highest of such provincial agencies in Canada; (b) yes; (c) yes, subject to agreement between the federal and provincial control agencies.


Mr. McCain: What were the costs of ice-breaking operations for each fiscal year 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, in each of the following regions
(a)	the Maritimes (b) the St. Lawrence River system (c) the Arctic (d) the Pacific coast (e) the Great Lakes?


Jean Marchand: 1970-71	1971-72	1972-73 $(a) Maritimes	<L>	<D	6,725,609(b) St. Lawrence River System	3 3	3 as	2,757,111(c) The Arctic (Icebreaking	3 >	*3	3,887,000and Escorting)	os	as	(d) The Pacific	o	+-* o	0(e) The Great Lakes	a	C	550,002
Costs for 1970-71, 1971-72 are not available at this time. It would be necessary to review all ships' logs for this

period in order to arrive at the necessary split and this could take several months.
October 15, 1973


Mr. McCain: 1.	What are the estimated fixed charge costs for defrayment of interest charges and amortization of capital costs for the St. Lawrence Seaway for each fiscal year since 1970-17 inclusive?
2.	Have these payments been made in accordance with the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and (a) if so, in what manner
(b)	if not, how does the Seaway Authority intend to meet these obligations and requirements?


Jean Marchand: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. Under the Financial Administration Act the fiscal year of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is stated to be the Calender year. The payment of the following sums would have defrayed interest charges and amortization of capital costs for the Montreal-Lake Ontario section of the Seaway. 1970, $22,400,000; 1971, $23,700,000; 1972, $24,600,000. It is not possible to give comparable figures for the Welland section since the terms and conditions for repayment of indebtedness have not yet been determined.
2. No. (a) The following partial payments were made in respect of the Montreal-Lake Ontario section; 1970, $11,665,000; 1971, $12,280,000; 1972, $8,749,000. (b) the reorganization of the St. Lawrence .Seaway Authority's finances has been under study by an interdepartmental committee for some months and a report to the government is expected to be submitted by about October 1.


Mr. McCain: What were the profits or losses of Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways for each fiscal year 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 in each of the following regions (a) British Columbia (b) the Prairie Provinces (c) Central Canada (Ontario and Quebec) (d) the Maritimes?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Neither railway compiles profit or loss statements on a regional basis.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	Is a person with a past history of mental illness permanently disqualified from enrolment in the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	In disqualifying persons for enrollment in the Armed Forces on the grounds of a past history of mental illness, are distinctions made on grounds of length of illness, type of illness, severity of the disorder, etc. and, if so, what are the criteria applied?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes, the present regulation contained in CFP 154, Article 719, reads as follows: Psychoses, Psychoneuroses, Character Disorders. The causes for rejection for enrolment are: (a) Psychoses: A history of a definite psychotic episode shall preclude enrolment, except in cases of psychosis of brief duration associated with a toxic or infectious process, (b) Psychoneurosis: A history of a psychoneurotic reaction which has required hospitalization, or prolonged care by a physician, or loss of time from
Order Paper Questions
normal pursuits (i.e., impaired school or work efficiency), (c) Character Disorders: (1) A history of antisocial behaviour, encounters with the law, inadequacy, or marked immaturity. (2) Sexual deviation, chronic alcoholism, and drug addiction.
2.	As a rule, the above criteria are strictly adhered to, but in some instances of minor character disorders the rules may be relaxed. An episode of proven psychotic reaction, and in cases of psychoneuroses, where hospitalization, relatively prolonged care by a physician, loss of time at work or school have occurred, rejection is habitual. Cases are considered individually, the medical history is analysed and the Medical Board renders a decision. When the illness or disorder is considered to have been of a minor nature, a candidate may be accepted.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): Is it the intention of the Minister of Justice to recognize any government obligation north of 60 degrees, by paying fees and disbursements to Mr. Dietrich Brand, appointed by Mr. Justice William Morrow to act for the Department in current land hearings and, if not, for what reason?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the
Department of Justice is concerned, Mr. Dietrich Brand was appointed by Mr. Justice Morrow as amicus curiae to assist him in the recent caveat hearings. Mr. Brand was not appointed by nor did he represent the Department of Justice or the government of Canada. His fees in connection with this matter are therefore properly chargeable to the administration of justice in the Northwest Territories and their payment by the government of the Northwest Territories has been arranged with Mr. Brand.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	For what purposes does Canada permit the shipment of horses abroad?
2.	Is it permissible to ship horses for the purposes of slaughter?
3.	Is there any follow-up to ensure that animals are employed for the purposes declared at the time of their shipment and, if so, what are the precedures followed?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Horses for export to Europe are certified to a standard of health which will permit their use for breeding or work purposes.
2.	It is not a requirement to have the exporter indicate the purpose of export.
3.	In as much as it is not a requirement to have the exporter indicate the purpose of export, there are no follow-up procedures. However, all horses being shipped are examined prior to export by a veterinary officer and must be classed as healthy, fit for travel, and in a condition for work or breeding.

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many casual employees in ship repair at HMC Dockyard (a) were laid off (b) left their employment voluntarily between March 26 and July 2, 1973 in (i) Esquimalt (ii) Halifax?
2.	Have any of these employees benefitted or will they benefit from the retroactive pay rates set forth in the new collective agreement covering ship repair employees signed on July 18 in Ottawa with the Treasury Board and (a) if so, how many (b) if not, what explanation is offered for refusing to pay these employees at the new rates?
3.	How many persons referred to in Part 1(a) and (b) were re-hired during the period March 26 and July 2 in (i) Esquimalt (ii) Halifax and were they paid eventually at the retroactive rates once the collective agreement already mentioned was concluded?
Hon. James	Richardson (Minister	of National
Defence):		
	Esquimalt	Halifax
1. (a)	7	NIL(b)	10	NIL2. (a)	5	NA
(b) seven of the total of twelve casual employees not in receipt of retroactive pay benefits are not eligible under the Retroactive Remuneration Regulations because they left the service voluntarily. The remaining five, who had less than six months employment, were laid off during the retroactive period. Their status, in terms of eligibility for the appropriate portion of the retroactive period, is currently under review.
3. Esquimalt, nil; Halifax, NA.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	On or about Tuesday, July 24, 1973, were there present in Canada a significant number of French military personnel and two French military transport aircraft and, if so, for what purpose were they in Canada?
2.	Did their presence in Canada have anything to do with French nuclear tests taking place in the South Pacific?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Sixteen Officers and 73 Officer Cadets from Ecole de l'Air de France and the aircrew of two French DC 6 aircraft visited Canada on an educational tour from 18 July to 1 August, 1973. The itinerary included the following cities: 18-20 July, Ottawa and Toronto; 21 July, Niagara Falls (U.S.A.); 21-24 July, Calgary; 24-25 July, Vancouver; 25-26 July, Yellowknife; 26-28 July, Quebec City; 28-31 July, Montreal & College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean; 31 July, Bagotville; 1 August, Departed Montreal for Azores.
2.	No.


Mr. Scott: 1.	Has the government given any money to help establish bilingual districts in other natipns, such as the State of Louisiana and, if so (a) how much (b) who authorized the giving of this money
(c)	was approval of the Government of the United States received before the grants were given?
2.	Does the government plan to. continue this program and, if so, to which countries will the government probably be making donations?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of External Affairs as follows: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	(a) How much money has been expended for funding the proposed Olympic Village at Montreal (b) how much has been budgeted for future expenditures for this project?
2.	How much has been paid toward the salary of the Olympic Commissioner?
3.	How many government employees have been or will be seconded to COJO?
4.	(a) How much has been paid toward the salaries of government employees, if any, seconded to COJO (b) how much has been budgeted for anticipated future service by federal employees so seconded?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of Treasury Board):: 1. (a)
None, (b) If the City of Montreal wishes to avail itself of the provisions of the National Housing Act, it is hoped that it may be accommodated within the scope of the existing NHA program and CHMC budgetary capacity for the period for which the request is received.
2.	$35,880 have been paid for the period from July, 1972 when the Commissioner-General joined COJO, to August 24, 1973.
3.	No employee of the federal government other than Mr. C.O.R. Rousseau has yet been seconded to COJO. Approximately 25 man-years may be seconded for the period 1973 to 1976.
4.	(a) Nothing other than the Commissioner-General's salary as noted in 2 above, (b) Seconded personnel will be provided under normal program funding. Total expenditure has been estimated to range up to $750,000.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since 1957, has the government purchased any land adjacent to the Rideau Canal in the area of Smiths Falls, Ontario and, if so (a) what is the location of this land (b) on what date was the purchase made (c) from whom was the purchase made (d) what was the purchase price?
2.	Did the government at any time plan to construct a building in the area of Smiths Falls, Ontario as a headquarters for the Rideau Canal system and, if so (a) was such information made public (b) on what date was this done?
October 15, 1973

3.	Did the government subsequently decide not to build the headquarters of the Rideau Canal system in Smiths Falls, Ontario and, if so (a) on what date was this decision made (b) by whom was this decision made (c) was such a decision made public and on what date?
4.	Is the government now reconsidering the matter of building the headquarters of the Rideau Canal system in Smiths Falls because of its declared decentralization policy?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The following parcels of land adjacent to the Rideau Canal in Smiths Falls were purchased since 1957 by the federal government:
Location	Date purchased	Purchased from	Purchase pricePart of Lot 131 as shown on Registered Plan 2857 and Part, of Reserve Lot between Bay and Fly Streets.	June 1967	DOT Holding Company	$33,000Part of Lot 2, Concession 4, Township of South Elmsley.	August 1967	Ustel Motor Sales Limited	$1Lot 130 and Water Lot in front of Lot 130 as shown on Registered Plan 2857	June 1968	DOT Holding Company	$35,000Part of Lot 1 Concession 4, Township of North Elmsley.	August 1969	Town of Smiths Falls	$1Part of Fly Street now Gile Street and water lot opposite Gile Street in Town of Smiths Falls.	March 1971	Town of Smiths Falls	$1
2. The government announced in April 1965 that it proposed to construct a headquarters for the Rideau Canal System at Smiths Falls.
3.	The government still proposes to construct the headquarters.
4.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has there been a reduction in staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission Office at Kingston, Ontario and, if so (a) what are the names of those employees laid off (b) on what dates were they laid off?
2.	What was the reason for such action being taken?
3.	Has there been a reduction in the number of persons employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission at Kingston, Ontario assigned to handle complaints made to members of parliament by their constituents and, if so (a) what was the former number of persons involved in such work (b) to what level has this been reduced?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes, six casual employees have been laid off. (a) M. F. Walters, G. P. McCallum, R. McNeil, D. Douglas, J. R. Edwards, J. R. Stewart, (b) August 10, 1973.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Work shortage.
3.	Yes, (a) Three (one regular employee and two casuals); (b) two (one casual).


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In the past three fiscal years, how many men or officers, by rank, have left the Canadian Armed Forces with an excess of 25 years service?
2.	In the next three fiscal years, by year, how many men or officers of the Canadian Armed Forces with an excess of 25 years service are anticipated by the department to be retiring?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The number of men and officers who have attained in excess of 25 years service with the Canadian Forces who have retired during the past three years is as follows: General, 2; Lieutenant-General, 6; Major-General, 10; Brigadier-General, 27; Colonel, 69; Lieutenant-Colonel, 223; Major, 399; Captain, 362; Lieutenant, 4; Cadet, 2; SubTotal, 1,104. Chief Warrant Officer, 317; Master Warrant Officer, 499; Warrant Officer, 665; Sergeant, 613; Corporal, 216; Private, 28; Sub-Total, 2,338; Total, 3,442.
2. Retirements of service personnel who will have achieved 25 years or more of service during the next three fiscal years is currently projected as follows:
FY73/74 FY74/75 FY75/76
Lieutenant-General	2	2	4Major-General	2	2	8Brigadier-General	6	14	6Colonel	14	23	24Lieutenant-Colonel	40	81	69Major	66	122	108Captain	71	96	125201	340	344Chief Warrant Officer	57	73	101Master Warrant Officer	102	112	127Warrant Officer	119	144	122Sergeant	116	152	155Corporal	59	64	68Private	1	2	-454	547	573Totals	655	887	917
POST OFFICE-ROYAL MAIL/POSTE ROYALE DESIGNATION


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government giving consideration to placing the words "Royal Mail/Poste royale" on the new series of mail vehicles that are being placed into service in Canada and, if not, for what reason?

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: The words "Royal Mail/Poste Royale" have been placed on the newly designed Canada Post mail trucks.


Mr. Forrestall: What was the breakdown, by province, for dollar expenditure by the Department of National Defence, in each fiscal year 1965 to the present, inclusive?


James Armstrong Richardson: Prior to 1967 the Department of National Defence did not maintain its budgetary records in such a way as to readily identify the breakdown of departmental expenditures by province.
Province	(a) 1967-68* ($000)	(b) 1968-69* ($000)	(<*) 1969-70* ($000)	(d) 1970-71* ($000)	(e) 1071-72' ($000)Newfoundland	4,880	5,682	6,627	6,004	12,867Prince Edward Island	12,297	11,381	13,072	13,940	16,583Nova Scotia	157,378	174,173	201,081	199,301	236,180New Brunswick	63,038	78,388	69,930	69,960	82,314Quebec	290,018	290,650	269,600	271,236	376,733Ontario	542,935	524,498	512,803	506,229	613,702Manitoba	78,168	74,496	81,775	81,937	90,588Saskatchewan	18,529	19,844	22,196	23,250	27,891Alberta	89,570	90,603	103,759	109,826	135,961British Columbia	110,490	119,047	135,195	146,512	160,097Yukon	1,4,54	109	234	318	14Northwest Territories	2,544	1,594	2,928	2,950	3,785Outside Canada	196,482	170,673	170,582	140,200	175,315Total Expenditure Distributed	1,567,783	1,561,144	1,589,788	1,571,669	1,932,630
Notes: (1) In the distribution by province shown in columns (a) to (d) the amounts included for military pay are exclusive of payroll deductions for Federal Income Tax, superannuation, death benefit and Canada Pension Plan. Also excluded in the distribution are the government contributions to the superannuation account, death benefit and CPP. However, pension payments from non-budgetary funds to pensioners resident in the various provinces is included in this distribution.
(2)	The distribution by province shown in column (e) is taken from the statement of expenditures by province for 1971-72 provided to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee on 13 April, 1973. The amounts shown in this column are based on a distribution of all DND budgetary expenditures without the adjustments for military payroll deduc-

tions, government pension contributions and pension payments from non-budgetary accounts that are incorporated in the distribution given in columns (a) to (d) inclusive.


Mr. Forrestall: What dollar proportion of the total budget of the Department of National Defence was expended outside of Canada since 1968?


James Armstrong Richardson: The following percentages, by year, since 1968, represent the dollar proportion of the total Department of National Defence Budget spent outside Canada: 1967-68, 12.5 per cent; 1968-69, 10.9 per cent; 1969-70, 10.7 per cent; 1970-71, 8.9 per cent; 1971-72, 9.1 per cent.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	On what date does the government and the Department of National Defence intend to complete the translation and publication of bilingual reprints of the Canadian Forces Administrative Orders?
2.	At what level has funding for this program been provided for the 1973-74 fiscal year?
3.	What percentage of such orders has been completed to date?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. All new CFAO's are published in both official languages. When a current CFAO requires amendment it is republished in both official languages. It is estimated that all such Orders will be in both official languages within two years.
2.	$87,000.
3.	60 per cent.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Since January 1, 1973, how many men or officers have been released from Maritime Command?
2.	For each calendar year between 1964 and 1972, inclusive, how many men or officers were released, by command, from the Canadian Armed Forces?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The number of personnel who have left Maritime Command for one reason or another since January 1, 1973, is as follows: (a) Officers, 121; (b) Other Ranks, 910; Total 1,031.
2. Records of termination of service for all reasons prior to 1968 are incomplete. From 1968 to 1972 terminations of service from each Command and personnel accounting unit are as follows:
October 15, 1973

Off/
Command	Men	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972CFHQ	Off	450	757	728	627	422Men	519	627	537	375	410969	1384	1265	1002	832Mobile Command	Off	146	186	133	140	151Men	1964	2102	1876	2098	23302110	2288	2009	2238	24814 Cdn Inf. Bgde Gp	Off	Men	7	9	8	7	9	8	Maritime Command	Off	203	247	202	208	186Men	1214	2187	1949	1616	14951417	2434	2151	1824	1681Air Def Command	Off	73	105	109	64	62Men	730	906	846	653	661803	1011	935	717	723Air Trans Command	Off	89	160	174	170	134Men	499	748	703	659	669588	908	877	829	803Training Command	Off	285	439	249	222	226Men	1701	2441	2064	1917	18081986	2880	2313	2139	2034Material Command	Off	Men	3	1	3	1	CF Comm Command	Off	2	12	14	15	18Men	150	223	215	164	189152	235	229	179	207Reserve-Survival	Off	32	67	59	21	1Men	63	150	134	34	295	217	193	55	3Tec Serv Unit	Off	23	67	50	40	27Men	169	314	285	263	173192	381	335	303	200Cdn Def. Educ. Est	Off	24	125Men	1	1425	139CF Trg Estab	Off	101Men	1	711	172Cdn Forces Europe	Off	34	53	40	34	14Men	330	270	332	196	154364	323	372	230	168
Order Paper Questions Off/
Command	Men	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972Other	Off	327	88	26	10	5Men	1566	437	257	175	2021893	525	283	185	207


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development aware of the amendment by the Council of the Northwest Territories to Bill 13-47 "An ordinance Respecting the Preservation of Game" enacted on June 30, 1972?
2.	Has the Minister received a request from the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada requesting him to disallow that amendment because no opportunity was given to the native organizations to submit their recommendations or to make clear the difficulties this amendment will cause to native people?
3.	Has the Minister made a decision regarding this request, and, if so (a) what was it (b) for what reasons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 
Mr. Gleave: 1.	On what date was the Bowden Correctional Centre in the province of Alberta purchased by the government?
2.	What price was paid for this property?
3.	What understanding was given as to continued employment of personnel at the institution?
4.	How many inmates will the institution accommodate?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. Negotiations for purchase of the Bowden Correctional Centre are not yet completed.
2.	No money paid to date.
3.	Negotiations now in progress aim at the hiring of all the present staff of Bowden with the possible exception of a very small number whose categories of employment are not normally required in the operational system of the Canadian Penitentiary Service. However, the operation of Bowden as a medium security institution of the Canadian Penitentiary Service will require a larger staff than presently employed there.
4.	Approximately 200.

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE-TAKE HOME PAY


Mr. Forrestall: By rank, for officers and men, what percentage of gross pay to Canadian Armed Forces personnel was actually taken home by CAF personnel in 1963, 1968 and 1972?


James Armstrong Richardson: To provide the information as requested, by rank, would entail the expenditure of man hours and dollars which are not available for this purpose. However, the following information may provide the required comparison.
	Officers	Men
	%	%
1963	84	881968	77	831972	74	79
Note: The above statistics represent gross pay less deductions for Income Tax, Pension, Supplementary Death Benefits and Unemployment Insurance.


Mr. Forrestall: With respect to deductions for provision of married quarters for Canadian Armed Forces personnel, are there any instances in which the provisions of Queens Regulations and Order 208.51 are not being met and, if so, what are the circumstances?


James Armstrong Richardson: There are no known instances where charges for married quarters, in accordance with Article 208.51 of Q.R. & O. are not being applied to quarters occupied by families. On several bases, where the supply of married quarters exceeds the demand for family accommodations single personnel are offered these quarters with the following stipulations: (a) that the quarters will be vacated on 30 days' notice if required for family accommodation; and (b) that the monthly charge will be the full established rate,
i.e., the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation appraised shelter charge plus, where applicable, the national average charge of $21 for utilities.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): What was the price paid by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to acquire the assets of (a) CFRG/CFGR Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan from Radio Gravelbourgh Limitee (b) CFNS Saskatoon, Saskatchewan from Radio-Prairies-Nord Limitee?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) $40,000; (b) $55,000.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): 1.	In each of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, what was the average per diem cost per animal for feed and care at each of the quarantine stations (a) Saint Pierre (b) Grosse lie (c) Levis (d) Edmonton?
2.	In each of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, what was the average cost per ton of hay, grain and/or prepared feed consumed at each of the quarantine stations (a) Saint Pierre (b) Grosse lie, (c) Levis (d) Edmonton?


Eugene Whelan: 1. (a) St.
Pierre, 1970, $5.32; 1971, $5.66; 1972, $5.73. (b) Grosse lie,
1970,	$3.54; 1971, $3.69; 1972, $4.69. (c) Levis, 1970, $9.44;
1971,	$8.26; 1972, $7.01. (d) Edmonton, 1970, Not in operation; 1971, Not in operation; 1972, $9.03.
2.	(a) St. Pierre Hay, 1970, $59.95 per ton; 1971, $52.30 per ton; 1972, $52.80 per ton; Prepared Feed 1970, $81.15 per ton; 1971, $86.43 per ton; 1972, $86.75 per ton. (b) Grosse lie Hay, 1970, $50.00 per ton; 1971, $50.00 per ton; 1972, $65.00 per ton; Prepared Feed 1970, $68.35 pQr ton; 1971, $75.85 per ton; 1972, $82.73 per ton; (c) Levis Hay, 1970, $44.00 per ton;
1971,	$44.00 per ton; 1972, $48.00 per ton; Prepared Feed 1970, $110.00 per ton; 1971, $114.00 per ton; 1972, $110.00 per ton. (d) Edmonton; 1970-1971 Not in operation. Hay,
1972,	-$32.00 per ton; Prepared Feed 1972, $57.60 per ton.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	On what date was the Evaluation and Liaison Division of CIDA created?
2.	How many staff are employed within the Evaluation and Liaison Division of CIDA?
3.	(a) To whom does the Director of the Division report (b) to whom is the Director responsible?
4.	How many capital projects undertaken by CIDA has the Evaluation and Liaison Division examined since the Division was created (a) what were the projects (b) for what reasons was each project selected for examination (c) for each of the projects examined by the Division (i) what information was judged to be relevant to the examination (ii) what was the information examined (iii) under what criteria was each project evaluated (d) for each project evaluated, what was the result, conclusion or recommendation of each evaluation (e) for each project evaluation which produced a recommendation, in which cases the CIDA acted upon the recommendation of the evaluation (f) for each of the projects evaluated, did the evaluation procedure take place within Canada, or on or near the site of the project?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. 1. The Evaluation Division of the Policy Branch of CIDA became effectively operational in January of 1973. 2. Staff numbers as of September 1, 1973 were: Director, 1; Evaluation Officers, 3; Stenographers, 2, for a total of 6. In addition, a full-time consultant to the agency on educa-tionl programs is attached to the division. 3. (a) The director of the division reports to the acting vice-president, policy branch; (b) The director is responsible to the acting vice-president, policy branch. 4. To date, the division has not examined any capital projects, but has been actively concerned with other areas of CIDA's programing, particularly in the fields of training and technical assistance.


Mr. Reynolds: Did Mr. Donald Anderson abscond with $3,000 from the AntiPoverty Program under the direction of the Secretary of State and, if so, what action was taken (a) against him (b) to recover the said amount?


James Hugh Faulkner: In
October 1972, a Citizenship grant for $3,000 was awarded by the Secretary of State Department to the Abbotsford Low-Income Group, an organization not under the direction of the Secretary of State Department. With respect to Mr. Donald Anderson, his case is now before the court.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	How many young Canadians (a) male (b) female are enrolled in the Cadet Program?
2.	How many (a) male cadets (b) female cadets attended cadet summer camps in the summer of 1973?
3.	By what percentage of the total enrollment in the Cadet Program (a) male (b) female did those attending summer camp represent?
4.	What was the total amount of governmental expenditures on the Cadet Summer Training Program?
5.	What was the total amount of governmental expenditures on the Cadet Training Program for (a) male cadets (b) female cadets in the summer of 1973?
6.	In percentage terms, what was the portion of the budget of the Cadet Summer Training Program expended on training for summer training for (a) male cadets (b) female cadets in the summer of 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) As of January 31, 1973, there were 64,692 young male Canadians enrolled in the Cadet Program, (b) At present, Section 43 of the National Defence Act precludes the enrolment of young female cadets.
2.	(a) Approximately 24,000 male cadets attended cadet summer camps in 1973. (b) Not applicable. See 1(b) above.
3.	(a) Approximately 37 per cent of the total male cadet enrolment attended summer camp in 1973. (b) Not applicable. See 1(b) above.
4.	Approximately $6.9 million was allotted for the 1973 cadet summer training program. (Note: Actual expenditure is not yet known as all accounts for 1973 have not yet been cleared.)
5.	(a) As for 4 above, (b) Not applicable. See 1(b) above.
6.	(a) Approximately 62 per cent, (b) Not applicable. See 1(b) above.


Mr. Godin: Do Indians have to pay provincial and municipal sales tax on telephone and electricity bills?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Unless there has been exemp-
Order Paper Questions
tion granted by the appropriate provincial authorities, Indians say the same provincial and municipal sales taxes as anyone else.


Mr. Reynolds: Will the government building in Vancouver include an ice skating rink and, if so (a) is the rink to be used by the public (b) will there be any charge for its use?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows, (a) The preliminary conceptual plans for the Vancouver building by Arthur Erickson had shown an area on the outside plaza at ground level designated as a fountain or skating rink. If the concept remains unchanged, it is intended that during the summer months a large fountain would be installed and that during the winter months such facilities could be converted to a small skating rink for the use of and enjoyment of the public, (b) It is anticipated at this time that there shall be no charge for the use of this skating rink.


Mr. Matte: What is the salary or remuneration paid by CBC to hostess Lise Payette and the Jeannette Bertrand-Jean Lajeunesse couple?
Hort. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State): I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose salaries or remuneration paid to individuals.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were instructions issued recently by anyone whatsoever for the destruction of all pink referral slips on hand at Canada Customs at the Port of Lansdowne, Ontario and known as Form E-67 and, if so, whom were such instructions given?
2.	Was the reason for such instructions because this form, used strictly for internal port use, was printed entirely in the English language?
3.	Was there any communication, written or verbal, between the Department of National Revenue and the Commissioner of Official Languages on this subject?
4.	Were such forms ordered to be destroyed or discarded in any other localities in Canada and, if so, in what provinces and in how many localities in each province?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as National Revenue is concerned: 1. Yes. The Regional Collector, Port of Ottawa, ordered the destruction of all unilingual Forms E-67 at the Port of Lansdowne and their replacement with bilingual forms.
2.	Yes. The form is now available in bilingual format.
3.	No. There was no communication with the Commissioner of Official Languages concerning the use of unilingual Forms E-67 at the Port of Lansdowne. However, there
6850

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions
has been communication about the use, since discontinued, of such forms in unilingual format at the Port of Prescott.
4.	Yes. Instructions have been issued to all field offices authorizing destruction of all unilingual forms provided replacements in bilingual format are available. Form E-67 was revised to bilingual format in March, 1972.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many (a) teachers (b) advisers (c) other personnel (d) spouses were returned to Canada to attend the study session with officers of the Canadian International Development Agency August 22 to 24, 1973 from Francophone Africa?
2.	In each case, what was (a) the country of employment (b) the cost of travel to and from Canada (c) the cost of accommodation (d) the cost of meals and other per diem expenses?
3.	In each case, who bore the costs involved?
4.	Where were the study sessions held?
5.	What were (a) the nature of the sessions (b) the conclusions reached (c) the recommendations made (d) the action proposed by CIDA to reinforce its efforts in the field of social improvement as a result of this study session?


Mitchell William Sharp: (1) No personnel were returned to Canada specifically to attend this de-briefing session. Forty eight francophone teachers who had already terminated their assignments and were already in Canada, attended the Conference at Ottawa University. Twenty four were accompanied by their wives.
(2)	(a) See following list of number of teachers and spouses by country. R.C.A., 5-4; Cameroun, 10-6; Tunisie, 7-1; Cote d'Ivoire, 5-3; Zaire, 2-2; Maroc, 1-1; Burundi, 1-1; Madagascar, 2-0; Gabon, 3-0; Algerie, 5-1; Tchad, 1-1; Senegal, 4-3; Togo, 2-1. (b) Nil. Personnel already in Canada, having completed assignments, (c) $1,348. (d) $3,716.03 plus $1,030 for facilitators and secretariat (per diem) and mileage.
(3)	CIDA.
(4)	Ottawa University.
(5)	Discussion Sessions in work groups and plenary to collect views of returnees on CIDA program and its administration, (b) Results of study session now being compiled, (c) Same as for 5 (b) above, (d) When recommendations and observations of CIDA returnees have been compiled, they will be considered by management in relation to existing policy and procedures.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What is the total number of employees in Sports Canada?
2.	(a) How many employees earn over (i) $16,000 a year (ii) $20,000 a year (b) what is the annual total payroll of Sports Canada (c) what percentage of the budget is made up of salaries and wages?
3.	What were the (a) entertainment expenses (b) travelling expenses of Sports Canada executives and other personnel in the past fiscal year?
4.	How many employees (a) are graduates in physical education (b) are professional athletes (c) held previous government positions other than clerical or junior administrative?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. 51
2.	(a) (i) 13; (ii) 3. (b) 1972-73, $336,000; (c) 1972-73, 21.7 per cent.
3.	(a) $ 7,542; (b) $84,546.
4.	(a) 9; (b) 2; (c) 9.


Mr. Stevens: In July and August, what was the average rate of interest charged on new long term financing commitments by the Export Development Corporation?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Export Development Corporation states: It is not in the public interest to publish information on EDC lending rates. These rates vary according to such factors as the need to match international competition and the credit risks involved. To publish an average rate would be to disclose to certain borrowers that the EDC rate to them is above the average and this would militate against the possibility of repeat business for Canadian exporters.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	What has been the total cost to date of the design and construction of the Bandaranaike (Katunayake) Airport at Columbo, Sri Lanka and, of this (a) what amount of the total cost to date was financed by Canadian aid (b) did this aid take the form of a loan or of a grant?
2.	When was the Bandaranaike Airport completed, or, if the project is still underway, what is the projected date of completion?
3.	At the conclusion of pre-construction studies, what was the total estimated cost of the Bandaranaike Airport?
4.	What were the dates of (a) the start of the feasibility study on the Bandaranaike project (b) the start of the construction of the Airport?
5.	What was the cost of the professional services provided on the design and construction of the Bandaranaike project, including (a) consultant's costs (b) architect's fees (c) engineer's fees (d) project manager's fees (e) lawyer's fees (f) other professional fees and, in each case, what were the names and addresses of each concern retained to perform the work together with the total amount paid or payable to such concern?
6.	How many scheduled flights were recorded at the Airport during 1972 and in each quarter to date in 1973?
7.	Based upon the feasibility study report on the construction of the Bandaranaike Airport, what is the nature of the anticipated impact that the Airport is expected to have on the economy of Sri Lanka?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Total cost of design and construction of the Bandaranaike Airport at Colombo was approximately $7.8 million and of this $6,568,718.25 was financed by the Canadian International Development Agency as follows: $5,068,718.25 from Grant Funds; and $1,500,000.00 from Loan Funds; $6,568,718.25 Total.
2. The Bandaranaike airport was completed in June 1968.
October 15, 1973

3.	The preconstruction estimated cost was approximately $6 million. However, changes were effected later in the design of the terminal to include a third floor and a control tower and it was later decided to provide furnishings.
4.	The feasibility study started in 1963. Construction started on the runway extension in September 1964 and on the airport terminal in February 1966.
5.	The Foundation of Canada Engineering Corp. Ltd. of 2200 Yonge Street, Toronto, provided engineering consultancy services at the cost of $377,950.55 and was the only outside professional consulting firm engaged on the project. All other professional services were provided by the in house professionals of the Canadian Department of Transport.
6.	Over seven thousand commercial air movements were recorded in 1972 at the airport. Statistics are not available within CIDA for 1973.
7.	Prior to the construction of the Bandaranaike airport Sri Lanka did not have an airport which could handle the jet aircraft being used and planned to be used by international carriers. Sri Lanka, being strategically located on major intercontinental trade routes (both sea and air), expected to act as a major port of call on these routes. One other major advantage to the Sri Lankan economy was the anticipated increase in the volume of tourists which would result from the improvement of the airport facilities. Statistics of traffic at Bandaranaike Airport reflect a steady growth of both aircraft movement and passenger traffic. The current volume of traffic, and its annual rate of increase is, in fact, far greater than estimated at the outset of the project.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Can a Public Servant become president of a federal or provincial political organization without violating the Public Service Employment Act or Regulations?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: No. Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act states, in part, that no deputy head and no employee "shall engage in work for, on behalf of or against a political party".


Mr. Towers: 1.	What is the total cost of advertising for the 1973-74 Local Initiatives Program?
2.	Is the cost itemized under total for newspapers, television and radio advertising and, if so, what are the amounts?
3.	Is the expenditure for advertising of LIP included in the announced amount of $83 million or is it an additional cost and, if so, to what branch of the Department is the advertising charged?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. $510,000.
2. Yes; newspapers, $217,141.63; television, nil; radio, $165,824.
Order Paper Questions
3. Included in the announced amount of $83 million.


Mr. Mather: In the latest year on record, what percentage of the population of Canada speak (a) English only (b) French only (c) both languages?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: The following percentages are derived from the 1971 Census of Canada (the latest year for which these date are available) and show the percentages of the Canadian population speaking: (a) English only, 67.1 per cent; (b) French only, 18.0 per cent; (c) Both languages, 13.4 per cent.
(Note: 1.5 per cent speak neither language)


Mr. Stevens: What was the total expenditure on a national accounts basis in each of the calendar years 1968 to 1973 for all governments in Canada and what was the total expenditure in each of the years at the federal, provincial and municipal levels?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: The total expenditure on a national accounts basis in each of the calendar years 1968 to 1973 for all governments in Canada and the total expenditure in each of the years at the federal, provincial and municipal levels is as follows:
1968	1969	1970	1971	1972	Jan.- June*1* 1973Total Government Expenditure*2*	24,472	27,226	31,112	35,229	39,813	21,611Total Federal Expenditure*3*	12,254	13,524	15,337	17,496	20,250	11,287Total Provincial Expenditure*4*	10,354	11,674	14,159	16,534	18,169	9,685Total Municipal Expenditure*5*	8,288	9,295	10,460	11,562	12,754	6,749
C first, six months only.
f2'Excludes transfers to other levels of government.
Dllncludes transfers to other levels of government and expenditures by the CPP.
(^Includes transfers to other levels of government and expenditures by the QPP.
<5>Includes transfers to other levels of government and hospital expenditures.
i

October 15, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many applications, by province, have been received by the Farm Credit Corporation under the Small Farm Development Program?
2.	How many applications have been approved?
3.	How much money has been disbursed?
4.	What is the disbursement by province?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows:
1. Applications Received		Special Credit
Province	Vendor Grants	AssistanceBritish Columbia	3	-Alberta	901	181Saskatchewan	35	-Manitoba	70	9Ontario	135	18New Brunswick	36	6Nova Scotia	13	4Prince Edward Island	23	52. Applications Approved	British Columbia	1	-Alberta	745	144Saskatchewan	4	-Manitoba	41	5Ontario	114	16New Brunswick	31	5Nova Scotia	11	4Prince Edward Island	18	53. Total Disbursed*	$1,802,196	$2,941,8504. Disbursement by Province*	Special CreditProvince	Vendor Grants	Assistance$	$British Columbia	3,500	0Alberta	1,532,166	2,415,550Saskatchewan	0	0Manitoba	18,600	88,700Ontario	154,395	266,800New Brunswick	38,475	63,000Nova Scotia	19,360	60,600Prince Edward Island	35,700	47,200
* All of the approvals have not yet been disbursed.


Mr. Forrestall: Is nuclear power competitive with fossil fuels when the latter exceed $4 per barrel and, if so (a) are the Pulp and Paper industries as well as the Marine industries paying upwards of that amount (b) what specific steps is the government now taking to explore the advantages of nuclear power as an alternative source of energy?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: Nuclear energy is competitive as a source of electrical power with crude oil exceeding $4 per barrel. This economic advantage occurs only for large units and therefore nuclear energy is not competitive as a source of power for industrial or marine uses. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources carry out continual surveys to monitor the changing economic situation.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Can the Minister of National Health and Welfare advise whether it is the federal, municipal or provincial government that is conducting a survey with Old Age Pensioners in British Columbia?
2.	(a) Did the persons conducting this survey leave a copy with the Old Age Pensioners and, if not, for what reason (b) was the signature of the Old Age Pensioners required on the survey and, if so, for what reason?
3.	For what purpose is this survey being conducted?


Marc Lalonde: 1. It is the government of British Columbia that is conducting a survey with old age pensioners in that province.
2.	(a) and (b) Such information may be obtained from the government of British Columbia.
3.	Such information may be obtained from the government of British Columbia.


Mr. Reynolds: Is the government considering putting a limit on the number of (a) clams (b) abalones picked daily on the West Coast and, if so, on what date will these regulations come into effect?


John (Jack) Davis: Regulations restricting the taking of clams and abalones on the west Coast of Canada are currently being promulgated.
October 15, 1973


Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1958 has any person, who was at the time of the visit a Member of Parliament, visited the federal penitentiary at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and, if so, what is the name of each such person and the date of each such visit?


William Warren Allmand: Member
The Hon. Davie Fulton Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada The Hon. L. T. Pennell Solicitor General of Canada The Hon. G. J. Mcllraith Solicitor General of Canada Mr. Frank Howard, M.P.
Mr. R. Thomson, M.P.
Mr. J. Skoberg, M.P.
The Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer
Solicitor General of Canada
The Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, M.P.
The Hon. Warren Allmand
Solicitor General of Canada
Mrs. Albanie Morin, M.P.
Mr. Stuard Leggatt, M.P.
Mr. Reg Stackhouse, M. P.
Miss Flora MacDonald, M.P.
Mr. Norval Horner, M.P.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Was the grant of $2,215 to the Canadian Building Officials Association to enable the Association to make a simultaneous interpretation service available to those attending its annual meeting, in April, made retroactively after the meeting had been held?
2.	On what date was the cheque forwarded?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
and 2. The meeting of the Canadian Building Officials Association was held from April 2 to April 6, 1973. A cheque for the sum of $2,215 for simultaneous interpretation services was sent on April 5, 1973.


Mr. Knight: 1.	As of September 1, 1973, what was the total amount of student loans in arrears allocated to the Financial Collections Agency Ltd. for collection?
2.	How much has been collected?
3.	How much revenue accrued to the agency in these collections?


John Napier Turner: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2.	$3,532,082.
3.	$730,727.
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Since 1970, has the Government of New Brunswick requested
Orders for Returns
the federal government to designate other special areas than are mentioned in the Act concerning the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so, on what date?
2.	Was such a request made before 1970 and, if so, on what date?
3.	What new area(s) would be so designated?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as
Date of Visit 12 April, 1959
26-27 March, 1966
8	March, 1969
3-4 April, 1970 3-4 April, 1970 3-4 April, 1970 5 August, 1971
21 October, 1972
9	March, 1973
24 September, 1973 Members of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
follows: 1. and 2. There is no record of such a request having been made before or after 1970.
3. N/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 Justice 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 INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT 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 Indian Affairs and Northern Development on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?

October 15, 1973
Orders for Returns
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.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO COMPANIES

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Were grants and loans made to the following companies: Atlantic Sugar Refineries; Abitibi Paper Co. Ltd.; Alcan Aluminum Ltd.; Alberta Gas Trunk Line Ltd.; Algoma Steel Corporation Ltd.; Bethlehem Copper Co. Ltd.; BP Oil and Gas Ltd.; Bell Canada; British Newfoundland Corp. Ltd.; Bank of Montreal; Bank of Nova Scotia; Canadian Pacific Railway Co.; Canadian Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd.; Consolidated Bathurst Ltd.; Canadian Johns-Manville Co.; Chemcell Ltd.; Chrysler Corp.; Consumer's Gas Co. Ltd.; Canadian International Paper; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation; Canadian Javelin; Canadian Breweries Ltd.; Campeau Corp. Ltd.; Crown Life Insurance Co.; Canada Packers Ltd.; Davie Shipbuilding Ltd.; Dominion Textile Ltd.; Dominion Foundries and Steel Ltd.; Dome Mines Ltd.; Distillers Corp - Seagrams Ltd.; DuPont of Canada Ltd.; Domtar Ltd.; Ecstall Mining Ltd.; Eddy Match Co. Ltd.; Eddy Paper Co. Ltd.; Ford Motor Co.; Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd.; Foster Advertising; General Motors Corp.; Glaverbel Verrerie Ltee.\ Gaspe Copper Mines Ltd.; General Electric Co.; Great Canadian Oil Sands Co.; Gordon Hill Advertising; Great West Life; Hudson's Bay Co.; Hiram Walker - Gooderham and Worts Ltd.; Husky Oil Ltd.; Iron Ore Co. Canada Ltd.; Imperial Oil Ltd.; IBM Canada Ltd.; International Nickel Co. (Canada) Ltd.; John Labatt Ltd.; Kates, Peat, Marwick Co.; Loblaw Companies Ltd.; London Life Insurance Co.; Laurentide Financial Corp; Mercantile Bank of Canada; Metropolitan Trust Co.; McFarland Construction; Micro-Max Products Ltd.; Melchers Distilleries Ltd.; McCain Foods Ltd.; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.; Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada Ltd.; Molson Industries Ltd.; Massey-Ferguson Ltd.; McLaren Advertising; Noranda Mines Ltd.; National Sea Products Ltd.; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co.; Power Corp. of Canada Ltd.; Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd.; Procter and Gamble Co. of Canada Ltd.; Petrofina Canada Ltd.; Royal Canadian Bank; Rayonier Quebec Inc.; State Farm Insurance Co.; Steel Co. of Canada Ltd.; Shell Canada Ltd.; Steep Rock Iron Mines Ltd.; Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd.; Simpson's Ltd.; Sun Life Assurance Co.; Sperry Rand Canada Ltd.; Swift Canadian Co. Ltd.; Toronto-Dominion Bank; The Commercial Life Assurance Co. of Canada Ltd.; Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Lines Co. Ltd.; Trans Canada Pipe Lines Ltd.; Texaco Co. Ltd.; Union Carbide of Canada Ltd.; Union Gas Ltd.; Westinghouse Canada Ltd., by the Departments of (a) Regional Economic Expansion (b) Industry, Trade and Commerce (c) National Defence (d) Energy, Mines and Resources (e) Manpower and Immigration in each fiscal years beginning 1968-69 and, if so, in what amounts each year?
2.	Were remissions under Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act made to the same companies in the same period and, if so, in what amounts in each fiscal year?
Return tabled.



GRANTS UNDER RDIA

Mr. Broadbent: 1. What are the names of corporations which accepted offers of cash grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act (RDIA) in each of the fiscal years 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 is the projected date of the commencement of commercial operation of the facility in question?
3.	What are the names of the recipients of RDIA 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 evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.



INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE VISITS

Mr. Alexander: 1.	What was the total amount spent in each fiscal year since 1969 on grants to groups by the Secretary of State for the purpose of international exchange visits?
2.	For each fiscal year since 1969, which groups were given such grants and in what amounts to each group?
3.	What were the stated purposes of the visits made by each group during the above period and which countries were visited by each group?
Return tabled.



GRANTS UNDER DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE CITIZENSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Stackhouse: How much money was expended for grants, payable under the Department of the Secretary of State Citizenship Program, during 1972, to citizens groups and voluntary organizations in (a) each of the provinces and territories (b) Metropolitan Toronto (c) Scarborough, Ontario?
Return tabled.



GRANTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): How many charitable organizations received grants of public funds during each year 1970 to 1972 inclusive and (a) how much did each receive (b) for what reason was the grant made in each case?
Return tabled.



LIST BY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS OF LAWYERS APPROVED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list by electoral districts of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the government and, if so (a) what are the names on the list for each electoral
October 15, 1973

district in the province of Ontario (b) are such persons listed as members of a political party and, if so, which one?
Return tabled.



EXPENDITURES BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ON PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIAL SERVICES

Mr. Mather: By department, what was the amount spent on professional and special services in 1967 and 1972?
Return tabled.



RENTAL OF SPACE BY GOVERNMENT IN NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

Mr. Stevens: 1.	(a) What are the names of those persons/companies, holding corporations, or other entities from which the government presently rents space in the National Capital Region (b) in the case of corporate entities, who are the principal officers and who are the directors and shareholders of each?
2.	(a) Were public bids for rental space invited and, if not, what procedure for the selection of space was followed (b) are re-rental leases negotiated on an annual basis?
Return tabled.



FAILURE OF CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS TO FILE RETURN UNDER CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT

Mr. Peters: 1.	How many corporations failed, in each of the past three years, to file a return with Statistics Canada under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act?
2.	What were their names and addresses?
3.	How many corporations, in each of the past three years, were fined under Section 7(1) of the Act and what was the total amount of fines imposed and collected?
4.	How many officers, directors or agents of those corporations were fined in each of the past three years and how many were imprisoned under the provisions of Section 7(2) of the act?
5.	How many registered letters were sent by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in each of the past three years, to the delinquent corporations, as provided for by Section 8 of the act and how many fines and imprisonments ensued?
6.	How many labour unions failed, in each of the past three years, to file a return with Statistics Canada under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act?
7.	What were their names and addresses?
8.	How many labour unions, in each of the past three years, were fined under Section 12(1) of the act and what was the total amount of fines imposed and collected?
9.	How many officers, members of the executive board or agents of unions were fined in each of the past three years and how many were imprisoned under Section 12(3) of the act?
10.	How many registered letters were sent by the Minister, in each of the past three years, to the delinquent labour unions, as provided by Section 13 of the act and how many fines and imprisonments ensued?
Orders for Returns
Return tabled.



LIST OF LAWYERS MAINTAINED FOR GOVERNMENT LEGAL WORK IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the province of British Columbia?
Return tabled.



LIST OF LAWYERS MAINTAINED FOR GOVERNMENT LEGAL WORK IN ALBERTA

Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the province of Alberta?
Return tabled.



LIST OF LAWYERS MAINTAINED FOR GOVERNMENT LEGAL WORK IN SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the province of Saskatchewan?
Return tabled.



LIST OF LAWYERS MAINTAINED FOR GOVERNMENT LEGAL WORK IN QUEBEC

Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the province of Quebec?
Return tabled.



LIST OF LAWYERS MAINTAINED FOR GOVERNMENT LEGAL WORK IN ONTARIO

Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and electoral districts of all lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice for government legal work in the province of Ontario?
Return tabled.



DREE-ESTABLISHMENT OF RAPESEED CRUSHING PLANT IN WESTERN CANADA

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Since 1969, how many applications were (a) received (b) accepted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to establish some Rapeseed Crushing Plants in the provinces of (i) Alberta (ii) Manitoba (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) others?
2.	For each year, 1969 to 1972 inclusive, what was the total amount of money spent by the government (a) to assist the provinces of (i) Alberta (ii) Manitoba (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) others in establishing and maintaining some Rapeseed Crushing Plants (b) to improve and expand port facilities for the handling of rapeseed and rapeseed processed products?

October 15, 1973
Orders for Returns
3.	Is consideration being given by the government to include processed grain products under the Crowsnest freight rates and (a) if not, for what reasons (b) if so, on what date?
4.	For each year, 1969 to 1972 inclusive, which countries have imported from Canada (a) rapeseed (b) rapeseed oil (c) rapeseed meal (d) rapeseed margarine (e) rapeseed shortening?
5.	How many countries have been contacted by personnel of (a) the Canadian Wheat Board (b) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in order to promote the export sales of (i) rapeseed (ii) rapeseed products?
6.	Is it the intention of the Canadian Wheat Board to remove delivery quotas on rapeseed and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reasons?
Return tabled.



* MULTICULTURALISM PROGRAM

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What are the names, positions and departments of the public servants involved in any aspect of the multiculturalism program?
2.	How many consultants to, or other contract or occasional employees of, the government are involved in any aspect of the multiculturalism program and what is the name and responsibility of each?
3.	Of those persons enumerated in response to Parts 1 and 2, how many fall under the authority of (a) the Minister of State responsible for Multiculturalism (b) the Secretary of State (c) some other minister (d) more than one minister?
4.	Of the persons who fall under the authority of more than one minister, in each case (a) who are the ministers involved (b) what is the description of the division of authority?
5.	Of the persons under the authority of the Minister of State responsible for Multiculturalism, how many are not on the personal staff of that minister?
Return tabled.



COAST GUARD PROGRAM

Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What are the Coast Guard vessels by (a) type (b) purpose (c) number of crew (d) base for each coast?
2.	What are the administrative and operational costs for the Coast Guard on each coast?
3.	Is there any central administrative cost of the Coast Guard not included in Part 2 and, if so, what is it?
Return tabled.



OFY PROGRAM

Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo): 1.	For each year 1971, 1972 and 1973, what was (a) the total number of OFY applications received (b) the total amount of OFY funds disbursed (c) the total amount of OFY funds requested (d) the total number of OFY grants awarded (i) nationally (ii) by each province and territory (iii) by each constituency represented by a cabinet minister (iv) by each constituency represented by a parliamentary secretary?
2.	For each year 1971, 1972 and 1973 (a) how many applicants were employed in the previous year by OFY projects (b) how many such applicants received OFY grants, in each case (i) nationally (ii) by each province and territory (iii) by each constituency represented by a cabinet minister (iv) by each constituency represented by a parliamentary secretary?
3.	For the same years, in how many instances were references or contact people, who were involved with the making of OFY

applications, also members of the Local Advisory Board and, in each case (a) what were the names of the contact people (b) what were the names of the references (c) what were the titles of the projects involved (d) what was the name of the constituency (e) what was the amount of the award?
4.	For the same years, how many applications were refused where either the contact person or the reference were members of the Local advisory Board and, in each case (a) what were the titles of the projects involved (b) what was the name of the constituency?
Return tabled.



COST OF SUMMER HOSTELS

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	How many summer hostels are being (a) subsidized (b) otherwise supported (c) managed outright by the government in 1973?
2.	What is the cost to the government of each summer hostel operation?
3.	Was an approach to (a) the Canadian Youth Hostel Association (b) any other group outside government made to operate or manage these summer hostels and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Was any approach made to (a) the Canadian Youth Hostel Association (b) any other group to provide alternate hostel accommodation and, if not, for what reason?
5.	If approaches were made to operate summer hostels or provide alternative hosteling arrangements to any group other than the Canadian Youth Hostel Association, what was the name of each such group?
6.	What is the location of each summer hostel which will be maintained on a year-round basis?
Return tabled.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-CAPITAL COST ADDITIONS

Mr. McCain: 1.	For each fiscal year since the commencement of operations, what have been the capital-cost additions to the St. Lawrence Seaway?
2.	(a) What was the total capital cost of each such addition (b) what was (i) Canada's share (ii) the U.S. share of each addition's cost?
Return tabled.



COST OF FREIGHT SUBSIDIZATIONS

Mr. McCain: What was the cost to the Canadian taxpayer for freight subsidization for each fiscal year 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 in each of the following regions (a) the Maritimes (b) Central Canada (Ontario and Quebec) (c) the Prairie provinces (d) British Columbia?
Return tabled.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under the heading of questions. On Wednesday, March 21, 1973, as recorded in Hansard at page 2447, question No. 19 in my name was passed as an order for return and a return was tabled that day. However, it was grossly incomplete. The question had to do with directorships of cabinet ministers. Only a few ministers responded. Since the House passed the question as an order for return, I think it would be in order to ask that that return be completed.
October 15, 1973


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I remember that question very well. I had inquiries made. Unfortunately, the cabinet ministers of this government do not have a surfeit of directorships in outside companies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a further point of order. That does not excuse cabinet ministers from responding to an order of the House that a full return be tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the hon. gentleman report any progress with respect to coming closer to the end of the terrible war that is taking place in the Middle East, and will he tell us precisely what is the attitude of the Canadian government toward this tragic conflict?


Mitchell William Sharp: During the parliamentary recess, when this bloody war began, I did make some public statements and it would be my intention, either tomorrow or the next day, to make a statement on motions setting out the facts as we know them and the attitude of the Canadian government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister tell the House whether the statement he made to the effect that Canada would agree to participate in a new peacekeeping force is formal government policy, and whether the government has committed itself or is prepared to send forces immediately upon a request by the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we do have some Canadian forces in the area today serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization. They are continuing to serve in that capacity although, as the hon. gentleman knows, the truce is no longer being observed. I said in the House, and I repeated it in New York, that Canada would be prepared to participate in peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the United Nations. That caveat about United Nations sponsorship does, of course, apply to any request that might be made to us to serve in this area again.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has taken any initiative on behalf of Canada to bring hostilities in the area to an end?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish, of course, to exaggerate the importance of what Canada might say or do in these circumstances. This is not a war which is going
Oral Questions
to be ended by simple requests from a country like Canada to stop the fighting. We have, however, done everything we can to make known Canada's view that this kind of warfare is not likely to settle anything and that there must be negotiations. We have expressed this point of view to all those participating in the war at the present time. We have instructed our ambassadors to present this view to the governments of all countries concerned and there has been some response-so far, not very hopeful.


ARAB-ISRAELI WAR-POSSIBILITY OF DEBATE-RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST AND HAVE SECURE BOUNDARIES
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: On the same subject, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would be prepared to agree to a debate on this issue in the House, not necessarily a lengthy one but comprising more than the usual statement by him followed by responses on the part of the spokesmen for the other parties?


Mitchell William Sharp: Subject, of course, to the agreement of the House leaders on the business of the House, I, personally-and I know the government shares this view-would have no objection to a debate of that kind if it could be arranged at a time when it did not interfere with vital business going on in the House.


David Lewis: Basic to the entire problem in the Middle East, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows, is the question of the right of Israel to continue its existence as a sovereign country in that area. May I ask the minister whether, in any statement he may make, he will continue to emphasize Canada's support of the right of Israel to exist and to have secure and recognized boundaries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can entirely agree with what the leader of the New Democratic Party has said. Canada's policy begins from the premise that the State of Israel, which we helped to bring into existence and whose membership in the United Nations we supported, has the right to exist just like any other state in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: We also believe it is entitled to live behind secure and recognized boundaries.


ARAB-ISRAELI WAR-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON WHETHER OR NOT ARABS GUILTY OF AGGRESSION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is more direct than those which have been asked so far.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no, those questions were very proper.


An hon. Member:: But inept?
6858

October 15, 1973
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: However, the people of Canada would like to know whether the minister, who has apparently been in communication with the Arab states according to the public statements he has made, has informed them that the attack made on Israel by the Arab states was an act of naked aggression and one that cannot be justified under international law? Is that the opinion of the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have expressed a view which is widely shared throughout the world and which is based upon the observations of the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization, that the attack on this occasion came from Egypt and Syria.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the attitude of the Canadian government? Instead of a mealy-mouthed generalization, will the minister say whether the government made known its feeling that what has happened over there on the part of the Arab states cannot be justified under international law? That was the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not going to compete with the right hon. gentleman in matters of international law. All I can say to him, and I am sure he would agree with this, is that this way of settling this international dispute is not likely to lead to useful results. He will agree with me that the fighting ought to stop and that we ought to get down to negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just a generalization.


CHILE-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RECOGNITION OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT-ASSISTANCE TO POLITICAL REFUGEES
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question, also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has to do with another subject. Will the hon. gentleman make a statement in the House explaining why the government of Canada decided so quickly to recognize the new military government of Chile in light of the disregard by that government of the fundamental rights of many of the people of Chile? And did the government approve or will it repudiate a report of the Canadian ambassador to Chile justifying the military coup?


Hon. Mitchell'Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I do not think it is necessary to make a statement in the House as to the reasons for recognizing the government of Chile. We were following a practice which we have followed, generally speaking, in the past. Indeed, far from giving early recognition to the government of Chile we were very late in the process; we followed the Vatican, Denmark, Sweden and other close friends who have just as strong a respect and liking for democratic institutions as we have.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the minister does not propose to inform the House as to the reasons for Canadian recognition of the new regime, will he at least outline to us the steps to be taken to assist political refugees from Chile by offering them asylum, safe conduct and assistance?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman knows, we have accepted in Canada a number of Chileans who entered the Canadian embassy in Chile seeking, I think the best word is, shelter. Under international law they are not refugees in the ordinary sense but they did come to the Canadian embassy seeking shelter, and they were given shelter in accordance with the standing instructions provided to all our ambassadors. They are now in Canada. We have sent an immigration officer from Buenos Aires to Santiago, and we have sent one of the leading figures in the Department of External Affairs to examine the situation on the spot. I think the hon. gentleman can be sure we shall act with humanity in these matters as we always do.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the increase in the price of cars and fuel as well as in the cost of living in general can the minister say whether he is considering a revision of the position of rural mail contractors as well as all categories of employees with the Post Office who move the mail at rates set several years ago? If so, when will the minister make known his plans concerning the required adjustment so those employees will be in receipt of salaries comparable with those of other categories?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that will be done within two or three weeks.

[ English]


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the continuing high level of inflation and some evidence that the economy is slowing down and unemployment is rising, but more particularly in view of the fact that since that last budget we have had a great number of policies brought in affecting the expenditure pattern of the Canadian government, would the Minister of Finance tell the House today when we may expect to have a new budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did reply to the hon. gentleman's leader that it was not my intention to bring in a budget at the moment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That was three weeks ago.


John Napier Turner: That was three weeks ago and the position has not changed.
October 15, 1973


James McPhail Gillies: Is it the position of the minister, therefore, that he can do nothing to control inflation through fiscal policy, just as he can do nothing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a supplementary question. It is argumentative and a question asked in those terms is not in order.
[La ter:]


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance which is based on the original question asked by the hon. member for Don Valley. On October 11 the Governor of the Bank of Canada stated that economic growth is largely responsible for inflation. Is the minister in agreement with this statement? If so, are his present policies and practices being based on it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question can be asked directly without asking the minister whether he is in agreement with a statement made in other circumstances. A question asked in such terms is irregular.


IMMIGRATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I address a couple of questions to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister advise the House and the country as to how long he intends to assess the situation respecting the regularization of status legislation, and when does he intend to advise the country whether the October 15 deadline is final?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is only common sense and practical to wait at 'east until all the figures on the program are in before making a judgment whether we do have some firm evidence that there are many people whom the program has not reached. I would be interested in the hon. member's reaction when he assesses the program as well.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I suggest that the members of the Conservative Party have been very co-operative in this serious matter. I should like to ask the minister what he intends to do with those illegal immigrants who do not register by midnight, October 15? How does he intend to ferret them out and what are his intentions in terms of dealing with them, keeping in mind there has been some suggestion that perhaps there is a witch hunt in the making?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the use of the expression "witch hunt" came from sources that I cannot identify and I repudiate it totally. We said, and I think all hon. members agreed, when we dealt with Bill C-197 that once the program is over the law as it stands will apply. We do not intend to beef up our enforcement provisions and go on a witch hunt, but we do intend, when the presence of illegal
Oral Questions
immigrants in this country is brought to our attention, to apply the law as it now stands.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement made by the minister on Friday last regarding the Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island ferry services, is it the intention of the government to establish a Crown corporation to discharge the government's constitutional responsibility to provide continuous ferry services to these two provinces? May I also ask what efforts the government is making to clear up the backlog on the North Sydney to Newfoundland ferry route as a consequence of the rail strike?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I have already announced we have restructured the administration of ferry services in the Atlantic provinces. I made this announcement a few days ago. There will be a separate administration presided over by Mr. Tingley of Newfoundland, with sub-units in P.E.I., Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. We hope that under this new formula there will be a more efficient service. This administration will be able to plan for the future, will make recommendations, and will not be all mixed up in the administration of the CNR.
With regard to the second part of the question, we are making an all-out effort to get rid of the backlog. There are about 20 vessels travelling from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland. At the peak on September 24, 937 cars were backlogged. The number is now down to 702 cars. Progress is being made very rapidly and we hope within a few weeks to get rid of the remaining backlog.


NEWFOUNDLAND AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FERRY SERVICES-POSSIBLE FREEDOM FROM TIE-UPS AS RESULT OF LABOUR DISPUTES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether the new administration announced in the minister's release concerning ferry services within the CNR means that these services will no longer be subject to labour disputes within the railway and that the minister can now guarantee that the services will never again be disrupted?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that. I think if we are to remove the right to strike on the part of workers the question will have to be discussed in the House, when I presume many members will have something to say about it.
6860

October 15, 1973
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED USE OF ARMED FORCES AIRCRAFT AND VESSELS TO CLEAR BACKLOG OF FREIGHT AT NORTH SYDNEY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact it appears that his department is giving support to the removal of the backlog of freight, I wonder whether the minister has received a request for increased support, not only through airlifts but on the part of vessels owned by the department? What action is the minister taking in this regard?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the armed forces have been helping to remove the backlog of freight. We have moved two and a half million pounds by Hercules aircraft on some 74 flights, and we will be able to carry this program forward for as long as it may be useful.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of supplementary questions on this subject. The Chair might recognize the hon. member for Assiniboia and then the hon. member for Bellechasse before returning to the several members who have questions to raise on this point.


WHEAT-SUGGESTED CHANGE IN CROP YEAR TO EQUALIZE PAYMENTS TO FARMERS WHO MADE EARLY DELIVERIES
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that many smaller producers delivered their grain during the old crop year in June and July in order to meet financial obligations and debts and therefore lost out on the announcement regarding new prices on July 31 or August 1 for the new crop year, would the minister inform the House whether the government is considering making an equalization payment from the new pool account so as to assist those farmers who took a beating as a result of the new prices?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The ordinary year end of the pool is July 31, and farmers are fairly well aware of that fact. The fact is that some farmers realized that there was a possibility of a higher price and held their grain for a period or put it in storage for a period to sell to the new pool. I see no easy way of attempting to change the year end for pooling purposes in order to amalgamate part or all of two pools.


William George Knight: In view of the fact the government threw the quotas wide open and requested the farmers to deliver grain in the dying days of the old crop year and smaller farmers had to take payments to meet their debts, thus taking a beating as a result of the situation, would the minister inform the House whether the government has instructed the Wheat Board to examine the possibility of backdating the new crop year to July 15 or July 1?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should say, first of all, to the hon. member for Assiniboia that the opening of quotas is a function of the Canadian Wheat Board, not of the government. I think the hon. member would find it very difficult to draw one particular line and then not begin to draw a second one for those people who delivered their grain in the previous two week period. That is why I suggest that the alternative of somehow amalgamating the two would have the effect of creating what might be considered to be far more difficulties than it was set up to cure.

f Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell the House whether the new feed grains policy announced on September 14, 1973 has been applied so far, and what are the results in connection with the claims of eastern producers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the feed grain policy has been implemented in stages as the mechanics became available. The hon. member is, no doubt, referring to the question of the actual pricing of feed grains, particularly barley, for the purpose of marketing in the east. I am informed that a price announcement by the Canadian Wheat Board is expected momentarily.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a question directed to the Minister of Transport by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East. In view of the fact that the 90 miles separating Newfoundland from the mainland of Canada are to us what the trans-Canada highway is to people in other parts of Canada, is the minister prepared to instruct this new organization to revise the fares and freight rates structure for moving people and goods across that 90 miles to make them consistent with the cost of travelling 90 miles on any portion of the trans-Canada highway?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this problem of rates is being studied with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces. I met with them a few weeks ago. I intend to continue to study all these problems in an effort to find, hopefully, an acceptable solution.
October 15, 1973


BACKLOG OF FREIGHT AT NORTH SYDNEY-REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY-POSSIBLE USE OF ADDITIONAL ARMED FORCES AIRCRAFT
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on September 19 the minister indicated that, according to information from Canadian National Railways, the backlog of freight destined for Newfoundland would be cleaned up in about two weeks, and at that time there were 650 cars backlogged, and in view of his own statement today that there are 702 cars backlogged in the same system, would he cause an independent government or departmental inquiry, independent of the stuff he is being fed by Canadian National, into the circumstances so that he himself will recognize the dilemma facing the people on the east coast of this country?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think in order to be fair to all those working very hard to get rid of this backlog of freight destined to Newfoundland, particularly those in the Department of Transport and the ferry workers, I should point out that there is a normal backlog of about 200 cars between Moncton and the east, so you have to deduct that number from the 702 cars. It is for this reason we are making an all-out effort. We chartered 13 ships in order to get rid of the backlog. We have also had a strike in St. John's, and a bridge collapsed. In addition, there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of freight and passenger traffic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: You don't want to listen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary question, following which I suggest we should move to the next subject.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps on motions tomorrow the minister might make a statement to help clear up this matter. I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that three Hercules aircraft airlifting freight for approximately seven days managed to clean up about half of what is normally shipped by sea in one day, and in view of the fact that some of this freight was cement which we export from Corner Brook to the mainland and it was flown back again to Newfoundland, would the minister be willing to authorize a serious effort to put on eight or ten Hercules for two or three weeks in order that Newfoundland children can expect Santa Claus to arrive at least before the middle of February? I ask this as a serious question and not as a political show.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister did not indicate an intention to reply to the question by the hon. member. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


An hon. Member:: It was another minister.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I must admit that I was looking at the wrong minister. Perhaps the Minister of National Defence might be allowed to answer the question put by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member that the Department of National Defence has made a very serious effort. I suggest that 74 flights represents a lot of flying. We are operating under the guidance and direction of the Department of Transport in respect to this airlift. As I said in my reply a moment ago, we are willing to put on more planes if they can help in these circumstances.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of reports to the effect that Chinese arms are being used by certain guerilla groups in the mid-east, can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether the Prime Minister, while in Peking, will discuss these reports?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the reports I have had of the discussions between the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Chinese government-I think the House will agree that these discussions have gone very well and that the non-partisan, warm reception given the Prime Minister indicates the high regard of the people of China for Canada and Canadians- are to the effect that the Prime Minister discussed the Middle East situation with both Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai. When the Prime Minister returns I am sure he will be happy to answer this question.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that eight to ten people have lost their lives in car accidents on a very bad section of the Northwest Territories highway between Enterprise and Hay River, will the minister advise the House if and when this dangerous situation will be corrected?
[ Transla tion]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that and I have asked the officials of the department to see what could be done to improve the situation. However, it

October 15, 1973
Oral Questions
must also be understood that this is a very difficult road- the roads are not paved-and that sometimes accidents could have been caused by wrong manoeuvres by absent-minded drivers.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have directed this question on another occasion to the Minister of Transport, but in view of the fact that as of yesterday afternoon there were a number of freight cars spread across the real estate in my home town I wonder whether the minister can now tell us when we may expect the report he has promised for some time regarding derailments in Canada and safety precautions to be taken in this regard?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting this report from the Canadian Transport Commission. As soon as I get it I will communicate it to the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he assure the House and the country of the safety of Canadian truce observers performing their duties under United Nations orders in the area of the Middle East, and will he indicate their names, the duties they were called upon to perform at the time of the outbreak of hostilities, the areas of their operations and their present whereabouts?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not carry that kind of information in my head. I can assure the hon. member that all my reports indicate that Canadians serving in that area are alive and well. I would be very happy to supply the hon. member with the names, duties and other information in order to satisfy his curiosity.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wonder if the minister has reviewed the advertising campaign conducted by the government of Canada in an effort to sell the current issue of Canada savings bonds?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I have not as yet, Mr. Speaker, but I will be happy to look into the matter.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: When the minister reviews that campaign, will he do so with the intention of indicating to the Canadian public that the 8 per cent interest rate barely represents enough to break even-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is related to a previous question directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I wonder whether we are interpreting him correctly in understanding the Acting Prime Minister to have said that in fact no members of the Canadian Armed Forces serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Commission in the Middle East are in fact in the protective custody, if you will, of one of the warring nations and are free and as nearly as able fulfilling their duties?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, what I said in my answer is that they are alive and well. I am not absolutely sure just where they all are at the moment because some of them have been asked to move out of areas of warfare for their own safety. I will have to inquire concerning just exactly where they are and who is helping to protect them at the moment.


OIL EXPORT TAX-SHARING WITH ALBERTA- SUGGESTION THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE TAKE OVER NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Has the government now reached an agreement with the government of the province of Alberta in respect of what portion of the surtax will be returned to the province of Alberta at this time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that question is still under negotiation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I ask the Minister of Finance this question. In light of the fact the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has caused a lot of difficulty between the two levels of government because of his inflammatory statements, would the Minister of Finance be prepared to take over negotiations in respect of the
October 15, 1973

problem concerning the surtax between the federal government and the provincial government?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I think I had better interpret that as being argumentative.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Mr. Andrew Ross, the Canadian ambassador to Chile, has been reported to have recommended to the government of Canada shortly after the coup that we support this anti-democratic coup, would the minister inform the House whether or not the government received such a recommendation and, if so, whether he has taken steps to remove this man from office?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman seems to be referring to an alleged leak and it is government policy not to comment on these matters because it only encourages their repetition.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the squeeze that cattle feedlot operators are in, has the minister received any communication from the feedlot operators either west or east about the flooding of the Canadian market with overly fat cattle?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is talking about cattle from the United States. We have received representations from the feedlot operators, east and west, from the Beef Improvement Association, the Canadian Livestock Association and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. In essence, what most of them are saying is: Keep your hands off and we will work this out ourselves.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has the
minister seriously considered a temporary embargo until fat cattle from the United States are off the market?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have considered this. We are still discussing it with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and other such associations. I intend to discuss it further with my colleagues. In any decisions for which I have been responsible I have, as Minister of Agriculture, believed in full discussion with the parties concerned. When I can get some kind of a definite opinion from them
Oral Questions
it will be something different from what I have been getting as to just what they want us to do.



PENITENTIARIES


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Will the minister tell the House what actions are being taken by his department in connection with the escape of four inmates from the Collins Bay institution over the weekend?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the inmates escaped from Collins Bay over the weekend by gaining access to the plumbing and heating ducts in the institution and thereby gaining access to the heating unit which is outside the walls of the Collins Bay institution. The police authorities were alerted immediately and a search is presently underway.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-POSSIBLE TRANSFER TO DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER

Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the government has decided to end the Opportunities for Youth Program as it now exists and transfer its so-called youth employment function to the Department of Manpower? Also, will the minister undertake to table all reports evaluating OFY so that parliament may judge the effectiveness of this $43 million program and any successor programs that the government may propose?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, no such decision has been taken.



VETERAN'S AFFAIRS


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is it a fact that the Veterans Land Act offices in London are to be phased out by late 1974, and if such is the case what provisions have been made to assist in the relocation of the several employees and avoid the obvious inconvenience to some 10,000 veterans whose accounts are now handled through this office?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, this is under consideration. It is not definitely phased

October 15, 1973
Oral Questions
out. So far as the accounts of veterans are concerned, there will be some provision made to see that the services are provided.


Mr. Speaker:: On second thought, I think that question might well have been placed on the order paper, but the question has been asked and the hon. member has received a reply.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Labour investigate immediately the situation in the city of St. Thomas where Canadian locomotives usually repaired in Canadian shops have been sent to the United States for repairs? If this situation continues it will result in the loss of a large number of Canadian jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might reply briefly to the question.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate having more details from the hon. member. On the face of it, it would appear to be a question which should be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Manpower or the Minister of Transport.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister who is speaking for the Minister of Communications today. In view of the current practice of Bell Canada to increase, without corroboration, basic monthly rates for rural telephone subscribers living outside the company's core boundaries in the Sudbury area, and in view of the hardship these increases are causing many rural residents, will the minister consider instigating a thorough investigation of these rate increases by Bell Canada and the placing of a freeze on increases until such time as the investigation is completed?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister who is away on government business I am pleased to take this question as notice and I am sure the minister will answer it when he returns.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister responsible for the Canadian Livestock Feed Board a question which is supplementary to that of the hon. member for Bellechasse. In view of the fact that when he announced his new policy, the minister stated that the price of feed grain in eastern Canada would be considerably lower, that this announcement was made three months ago, and that the price of feed grain has in fact remained unchanged, could he advise the House when he expects the price of feed grain to go down in eastern Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the new feed grain policy is not to create either lower or higher prices for feed grains but rather to ensure availability at the same basic price plus costs all across the country. The implementation of this policy has been in progress. The price base under this new policy, in other words, based on the average price in western Canada, will be announced very soon.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF LEDAIN COMMISSION

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister advise the House when the LeDain report will be out, what is the reason for the delay and why is it not out already?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know the answer to that.


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


John Douglas Reynolds: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Athabasca, but the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the minister promised this report months ago. It has cost the people of this country millions of dollars. The last time the minister was asked the same question he said it was delayed because of translation. I cannot understand his explanation and I think it is contemptuous of the minister not to present the report to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
October 15, 1973



CANADIAN CULTURE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Can he inform the House whether the various ethnic organizations and the provinces of Canada were asked to select delegates for the multicultural conference now in progress?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult my colleague, the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism, on the exact format. I have a general idea but I would like to be absolutely precise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Athabasca on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Vancouver South and, before calling orders of the day, the Leader of the Opposition.


Paul Yewchuk: Perhaps from his general knowledge of this information the minister could inform us whether these organizations were at least asked for advice regarding who the delegates should be.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I believe so, in most cases. I am not sure if this would be true of all organizations.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. A. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of Canada's policy to maintain friendship with Russia and, more recently, with mainland China, as evidenced by the Prime Minister's visit, can the minister tell the House why visas were refused last week to Russians invited to Canada by the United Fishermen's and Allied Workers' Union in British Columbia?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, this situation was brought to my attention over the weekend, and I have asked for a full report on it. I will advise the hon. member as soon as I get the details.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from whom I have been trying to obtain a report on the monitoring of the consequences of tax reductions contained in the budget of the Minister of
Family Allowances
Finance last February, which the minister has frequently indicated would be forthcoming. Now, following three weeks of leisure, can the minister tell the House when we may expect this report, if we are ever going to get it at all?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I intend to table it in the House this week.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-211, to provide for the payment of family allowances in respect of children to supplement the income of Canadian families and for the payment of special allowances to provide for the care and maintenance of other children, and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride today that I move second reading of Bill C-211, a measure to supplement the incomes of Canadian families and improve their capacity to meet the costs of raising children. Bill C-211 will permit 3V4 million Canadian families, the great majority of which have low or middle incomes, to realize a net additional amount of $840 million in 1974 alone. In addition, it will advance the development of a more equitable regional redistribution of income across Canada. For these reasons, Bill C-211 represents a major step in the over-all reform of the social security system to which this government is firmly committed. As a matter of fact, it constitutes I believe the largest single federal expenditure ever voted by Parliament for any new program.
This bill is the second major social policy measure that the Government has brought before the House in the past six months. The first, of course, was legislation this past spring to increase the universal old age pension to $100 per month, thereby raising the guaranteed minimum income for pensioners to $170.14 monthly for single pensioners and $324.60 monthly for married couples when both the husband and wife are pensioners. Recently, Parliament approved a further amendment to the Old Age Security Act to provide that both the Old Age Security Pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement be escalated in accordance with increases in the cost of living on a quarterly basis, instead of once a year, as was previously the case. This means that as of October, the guaranteed minimum income is $179.16 for single pensioners and $341.80 for a married pensioner couple. These increased pensions for the aged, together with the changes in income tax law which substantially reduced or eliminated the tax burden

October 15, 1973
Family Allowances
on pensioners have, we believe, gone a long way towards improving the lot of our citizens aged 65 and over.
Bill C-211, now before the House, is directed at the other end of the age spectrum-at our citizens who are under 18 years of age. To mitigate the effects of rising prices, Parliament recently approved an amendment to the Family and Youth Allowances Acts to increase the monthly allowances paid in respect of dependent children under age 18 from an average of $7.21 to a flat $12 per month effective in October. The bill now before the House proposes to almost triple the pre-October average allowance payment from $7.21 monthly to an average of $20 monthly, with effect from January 1, 1974. This increase will mean greater benefits for over 7V4 million children in over 3'/2 million Canadian families.
Family allowances were first introduced in Canada in 1945. In that year the allowances were set at $5 for children up to 6 years of age, $6 for children aged 6 to 9, $7 for children aged 10 to 12 and $8 for children aged 13 to 15. The Family Allowance Program in 1945 was additional to the system of income tax credits for dependent children of taxpayers that had been in operation since 1918. The two measures were, however, closely co-ordinated. That is, the Income Tax Act required the return of certain amounts up to 100 per cent of the family allowance payments received, according to a graduated formula taking into account family income and size. In 1947, this approach was modified to repeal the tax on family allowances and to provide different exemptions depending on whether children were qualified or not qualified for family allowances. The original exemptions were $100 for a child qualified for family allowances and $300 for a child not so qualified. In the intervening years these exemptions have been increased and revised to $300 for children under 16 years and $550 for a dependent child of 16 years or over.
In 1957 the allowance rates were changed to $6 for children up to 10 years of age and $8 for children aged 10 to 15. The 1956 Family Assistance Program was revised in 1962 to provide the same level of benefits for the children of immigrants during their first year in Canada. Youth allowances of $10 for dependent children aged 16 and 17 who are in attendance at school were introduced in 1964. Finally, family and youth allowances were raised to a uniform benefit of $12 monthly effective October 1, 1973.
The original Family Allowance Program was introduced for the purpose of giving a maximum measure of income support to families to help ease the financial burden of bringing up children and to provide a measure of equal opportunity for children regardless of a family's economic situation. The objective of the new family allowance program is to provide a supplement to the income of Canadian families in such a way that those with the greatest need will receive the greatest benefit.
The increased allowances were proposed in the working paper on Social Security in Canada which I tabled in this House on April 18 last. In the working paper a family allowance increase was put forward as part of what we have called an "income supplementation" strategy. This strategy is one of five strategies advanced by the government of Canada as the basis upon which a general federal-

provincial review of social security policy might be undertaken.
At the April 20 Federal-Provincial conference of welfare ministers it was generally agreed that the propositions put forward in the working paper would provide an appropriate basis for a social security review. There was also unanimous agreement among the ministers at the conference that first priority in reforming the Canadian social security system should be given to increases in family allowances.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is important for several reasons. First, it represents a major step in the reform of Canada's system of social security. It is the initial phase of a program of income supplementation for those Canadian families whose earnings from employment are insufficient to support the family unit, for those families whose breadwinner simply cannot find employment, and for those families whose breadwinner cannot or is not expected to work, such as disabled persons and single-parent families.
It is estimated that there are 327,000 families with children under 18 who can be classed among the "working poor"-families whose earnings are not considered sufficient to support the family unit. There can be several reasons for this.
As hon. members know, income from employment does not ordinarily take account of family size. The family's breadwinner may be working part time at or near the minimum wage but even if he or she works full time at this wage, the earnings are not sufficient to support more than one or two dependents. Second, the breadwinner may be able to obtain work only on a seasonal or intermittent basis and is not able to earn enough to meet the mimimum income needs of the family. For these families, it is a constant struggle to try to keep off the welfare rolls. These families continue to work because of their pride in their ability to make their own way and because they do not want to lose their respect for themselves.
The tripling of family allowances will go some considerable way in providing more income to assist low-income families in meeting the costs of caring for and educating their dependent children.
Another significant feature of this measure is that it will permit a province to vary the family allowances paid within that province in relation to the age of children or the size of family or both, but not in relation to family income, provided there is an act of the provincial legislature which establishes what the variation should be. This approach would thus involve two parallel sets of legislation-one passed by the Parliament of Canada and one passed by a provincial legislature-both of which would regulate the family allowances to be paid in that province. Before differential rates can be paid in a province, however, the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have to satisfy himself on two counts: first, that the family allowances to be paid in the province would average $20 per child over a three-year period and, second, that an allowance of not less than $12 per month would be paid in respect of any individual child.
At this point I would like to emphasize again what I have stated several times in this House. Although the
October 15, 1973

amount of the cheques may vary from province to province, depending on provincial legislation, family allowances will continue to be sent by the federal government directly to families. Of course, a province may pay its own allowances as it sees fit. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that if a province chooses to have a $12 allowance paid in respect of children in a certain age group or in respect of a certain size of family, it will be necessary to pay more than $20 in respect of other children in order that a $20 average can be achieved. The provision to permit the provinces to vary the rates of family allowances flows from the fourth principle enunciated in the Speech from the Throne, namely:
It must be recognized that Provinces may wish to have the structures of social security vary in accordance with the social needs, income standards and the cost of living in different communities.
Mr. Speaker, this is consistent with recommendation No. 84 of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada. I should add that the approach of having two parallel sets of laws governing social security transfer payments represents a significant innovation in .constitutional arrangements as well as a new and, hopefully, continuing phase of federal-provincial cooperation.
Two provinces to date-Alberta and Quebec-have indicated their intention to take advantage of this "flexibility formula", and all provincial ministers of welfare have welcomed the federal government's initiative to give this increased flexibility.
The government has proposed in this bill that the minimum allowance that can be paid in respect of any child must be 60 per cent of the national norm. We have selected this percentage figure taking account of the recommendation of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution that, where a province wishes to vary the benefits paid to individuals under federal programs involving demographic grants or guaranteed income payments, such benefits should not be less than a certain percentage-the committee suggested perhaps one-half or two-thirds-of the amounts that would be paid under the scheme proposed by the federal government.
I should also mention, Mr. Speaker, that the bill contains a provision to pay a special allowance of $20 per month for the care and maintenance of children who are maintained by provincial governments or agencies of provincial governments in institutions or in foster homes or who are maintained by private institutions.
The principle underlying the new family allowance program is that the allowance represents a supplement to family income. Logically-speaking, therefore, we should not be paying an allowance in respect of children maintained by provincial governments in foster homes or institutions or maintained in private voluntary institutions. There are other provisions to cover the costs for such care, such as the Canada Assistance Plan. However, I have received strong representations to the effect that we would be discriminating against already disadvantaged children in institutional care if we were to eliminate the allowances now paid. Consequently, the government has decided to ask Parliament to approve payment of a special
Family Allowances
allowance of $20 to be paid for the care and maintenance of these 58,000 children.
Moreover, we propose to include children in the care of those private voluntary institutions that have been approved by a provincial government. This will mean that allowances now will be paid in respect of an estimated 9,000 children maintained in private voluntary institutions and for whom payments are not made under existing legislation.
In order to avoid discriminating against children residing with foster parents, we propose that the special allowance cheque be sent directly to the foster parent in the same way that a family allowance cheque is sent to a regular parent.
[ English]
Turning to the matter of costs, the proposed new family allowance program will result in an annual total cost of $1,830 million. This may be compared with the $640 million which was being expended annually on family and youth allowances prior to the October increase. However, we are also proposing that the family allowance should be treated as taxable income in the hands of the parent who claims an exemption for the child for income tax purposes. The estimated tax recovery will be $350 million to the federal treasury and a further $115 million to provincial treasuries, as a result of the tax-sharing agreements. Consequently, the net additional cost to the federal treasury of the new allowances will be $840 million, for a total net cost for the whole program of about $1,365 million.
I should stress that the proposal to tax the family allowance will mean that if a province does not vary the rates and an allowance of $20 is paid, only a very limited number of taxpayers with very high taxable incomes, for example, those with taxable incomes of over $40,000 whose children are 16 and 17 years of age, will suffer some loss compared with their existing family and youth allowance payments. Obviously, the situation may be somewhat different in those provinces which decide to modify the configuration of family allowances. The taxation of family allowances will bring them into line with the tax treatment accorded to other income security payments, such as Old Age Security, Canada Pension Plan benefits and Unemployment Insurance.
It will also be recalled that the Economic Council emphasized the need to concentrate family allowance benefits on the poor. The Family Income Security Program, or FISP, which my predecessor brought before this House last year, was designed to provide greater benefits, the lower the family's income. In the Speech from the Throne, and in my January 11th speech, the government's intention of bringing forward a new family allowance program which would concentrate the greatest benefits on those families with the lowest incomes was clearly stated. By taxing family allowances we will bring about a substantial degree of selectivity in the amount of the benefit, because a large part of the allowance will remain in the hands of those who need it most-the lower income families who do not earn sufficient income to pay taxes or who earn just enough to be taxed at the lowest marginal tax rate. On the other hand, families in the higher income tax

October 15, 1973
Family Allowances
brackets will receive a benefit that progressively reduces as income rises.
It may be useful to illustrate the effect of taxing the family allowance. Assuming that the national norm of $20 per child is paid; a non-taxpayer would receive a net benefit of $20; the average Canadian taxpayer would receive a net benefit of $15; the taxpayer in the highest tax bracket would receive a net benefit of $8.
Even after taxes are paid on family allowances, most Canadian families-and more particularly all the low as well as the middle income families-will be well ahead in comparison with allowances under the previous program. For example, the federal government used to pay a family with four eligible children an average of $346.08 per year. Based on the new average of $20 a month per child, the same family earning $4,000 per year will now receive- after allowing for taxes, I repeat, after allowing for taxes-$934.08, which represents a net increase of $588 per year for that family. The same family earning $6,000 per year will receive a net increase of $364.07. With earnings of $8,000, it will receive a net increase over and above what it was receiving before the latest amendments to the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act, and after paying taxes, of $345.29. Furthermore, the same family with earnings of $10,000 will receive a net increase of $319.71.

We propose that the new allowances become payable as of January 1, 1974. There are several reasons for choosing this date. First, it coincides with the start of a new tax year and will simplify reporting of income when taxpayers file their tax returns for 1974. Second, provincial governments require time to develop and submit their plans for variations in rates of allowances. Finally, it will take time to gear up the administrative machinery to provide for differential payments.
Parents now in receipt of family allowances will not have to reapply for the new allowances payments. However, parents will be asked to provide some additional information to facilitate taxing the allowances.
There are several other features of the bill that I would like to highlight on second reading. The family allowance will continue to be paid to the mother where there is one. However, it will be up to each family to decide which parent will claim the child as an exemption for income tax purposes.
Family allowances will be paid to parents who are temporarily residing abroad providing they are still paying Canadian income taxes. This will mean family allowances will now be paid in respect of children of armed forces and diplomatic personnel posted abroad. The allowance to be paid in these situations will be the national norm of $20.
The allowance will be paid in respect of a child residing in Canada who has at least one parent who is a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant or, in certain circumstances who is a nonimmigrant but whose income is subject to Canadian income tax. To be eligible for the allowance a parent must wholly or substantially maintain the child.

Allowances will be available fo.' children of immigrants as soon as they are legally landed. This means that the family assistance program, under which allowances equal to family allowances are paid during the first year in Canada, can be discontinued.
The school attendance requirement will no longer apply. Unemployed children under 18 who do not attend school are just as dependent on their parents as children who do. This means that allowances will be paid for all dependent 16 and 17 year olds throughout the year, instead of the present practice under youth allowances where youths must be in attendance at school to qualify for the allowances or be disabled and incapable of attending school.
The bill also provides that the average family allowance can be increased from time to time to take account of changes in the cost of living. Such increases would be brought about by order-in-council subject to approval through a resolution of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the proposal to increase family allowances, which was originally outlined in the Working Paper on Social Security in Canada was applauded by the vast majority of Canadians. To be sure, there were some fears that the magnitude of the increased expenditures would mean an increase in taxes. This will not be the case. The government has decided that priority in the allocation of government revenues will be given to the financing of increases in family allowances. We intend to fund these higher allowances without having to increase taxes to do so.
Apart from increasing the income of Canada's "working poor", the increased allowances should to some extent ease the pressure on provincial social assistance expenditures. The increase in the allowance should in many instances be enough to keep families off the welfare rolls.
Moreover, a tax recovery of $115 million will be realized by the provinces through tax-sharing arrangements. We would hope that these tax recoveries would be used by the provinces to ease the burden of their social welfare costs. [English]
I have seen some criticism of the proposal to increase family allowances on the ground that higher family allowances will encourage people to have more children, thus aggravating the so-called "population problem". All available evidence suggests that this claim is unfounded. There are a number of factors which can affect fertility. These include, for example, the level of family income, the economic outlook, trends toward urbanization, higher living standards, increased employment of women outside the home, spread of knowledge of family planning and development of effective contraceptive devices as well as changing social and cultural attitudes toward family size.
There appears also to be a high correlation between higher incomes and lower fertility. Taking account of long term trends, young married couples today are relatively better off than their counterparts of a generation ago and are limiting the number of children they have to maintain the standard of living they have achieved. Moreover, it is estimated that it costs between $500 and $700 annually to maintain a child. Consequently, a family allowance of $240 can hardly be said to provide an incentive to procreate.
October 15, 1973

If one examines the statistics on population u c ds both in Canada and in other countries, there appears to be no evidence that family allowance programs have stimulated the birth rate. This holds true even for those countries that have deliberately set about to use family allowances or other forms of income support to stimulate the birth rate. For example, population growth was the specific objective sought by the family allowance system in France. However, from 1960 to 1971, the fertility rate, that is the number of live births per 1,000 women of child-bearing age, has declined from 70.1 to 60.4 per 1,000. Czechoslovakia is another country which in the post-war period tried to stimulate population growth through family allowances and other forms of income support, but the fertility rate fell from 62.4 per 1,000 in 1960 to 51.4 per 1,000 in 1970.
It is also interesting to note the population trends between Canada and the United States over the past few years. Canada has paid family allowances since 1945; the United States has no program of family allowances. In 1960, the fertility rate in Canada was 94.6 per 1,000 and in the United States it was 86.1 per 1,000. In 1971, the fertility rate in Canada was 56.5, in the United States it was 59.3, remarkably close.
In a study conducted by the United Nations in 1965, it was found that there was a high correlation between high levels of economic growth and economic development and low birth rates. This study showed that the level of fertility divided the less developed countries from the more developed countries more consistently and more completely than any other single indicator. In the less developed countries the crude birth rate, that is, the number of live births per 1,000 of population, is still well above 30 births per 1,000, but in the developed countries it is below 30. In many it is around 15 per 1,000.
The 1965 World Population Conference reported that an advanced economy with a high per capita product requires and imposes a demographic pattern on the country under which the birth rates cannot be as high as those found in less developed countries. On the evidence I have seen, I am convinced that in an economically advanced country such as Canada, family allowances at the levels proposed would not affect the underlying factors that are encouraging and stimulating the trend toward still lower birth rates.
I think we should look at another interesting fact. Hon. members may recall that it was in 1945 that family allowances were introduced in Canada. In 1945, the average number of children under 16 years per family in Canada was 2.37. Today it has fallen to 2.17. Looking at the average number of children per family, the following comparisons are enlightening.
In 1945, Ontario had 2.06 children per family: In 1973 the figure was up to 2.15. In British Columbia in 1945, it was 1.93 children; in 1973 it was 2.09. In the province of Quebec in 1945, there were 2.86 children per family. By 1965 that figure had decreased to 2.61. In 1967, the government of Quebec introduced its own family allowance scheme in addition to the federal family allowances, yet the number of children per family continued to decrease to 2.11 today.
Hon. members will be interested to know that in 1973, British Columbia has the fewest children under age 16 per family, an average of 2.09. Contrary to popular mythology, the province of Quebec has the next lowest rate of 2.11,
Family Allowances
followed by Ontario at 2.15, Nova Scotia at 2.21, Saskatchewan at 2.22 and Manitoba at 2.24.
While Quebec is the second lowest province in terms of number of children per family, it is by far the lowest province with respect to the fertility rate. In 1971, there were 47.6 live births per 1,000 women of child-bearing age. The next lowest province w-s British Columbia with a rate of 55.4 per 1,000.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the minister accept a question?


Marc Lalonde: I will gladly answer a question after I have concluded my remarks. In global terms, families in Ontario will receive $650 million from the federal government through this program; in Quebec $497.5 million; in British Columbia $183.1 million and in Alberta $149.1 million.
I have pointed out these details because I am deeply concerned by several letters I have received recently from Canadians who believe that this program is designed primarily to benefit Quebec families. The foregoing facts simply do not support this argument, Mr. Speaker. I would therefore request the active support of all members of the House, regardless of their political affiliations, in dispelling this erroneous impression, which undermines the unity of our country.
Some critics have suggested that we should eliminate family allowances completely or, alternatively, limit allowances to one or two children per family. Mr. Speaker, I reject this proposition out of hand. In all humanity, one cannot argue that because parents ought, perhaps, not to have had children, we should allow the children to suffer from poverty and malnutrition. Other measures should be and are being adopted to encourage family planning. For example, my department has set up a program of public information and education on family planning. Moreover, we are promoting the training of professionals and nonprofessionals engaged in providing family planning services and are supporting research on family planning.
It is through improved programs of public information and education that we are trying to come to grips with the issue of family planning. It is through the family allowances program that we are hoping to improve the living standards of the present generation of Canadian children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves living in conditions of poverty.
When one adds to this $840 million the $300 million in additional expenditures incurred earlier this year with the increase of the old age security pension to $100 a month, the estimated additional $94 million to the end of the year 1973-74 resulting from quarterly escalation of OAS/GIS, the further estimated additional annual costs of $158 million for OAS/GIS escalation in 1974-75, it will be seen that this government has added almost $1.4 billion to social security in the last six months. These measures have all been taken in the interests of improving the standard of living of our aged and our families.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada together with the governments of the provinces is well into the joint review of social security which was proposed in the work-

October 15, 1973
Family Allowances
ing paper tabled last April. This joint review with the provinces is progressing extremely well in our view. As one of the first results of this review, I hope to bring before the House this fall legislation to amend the Canada Pension Plan. As hon. members know, I have met with my provincial counterparts for a second time in early October. The aim of this meeting has been to first of all reach agreement on changes in the CPP and to review progress of the various studies being undertaken by working parties of federal and provincial officials,
I am happy to report that my provincial colleagues and I have reached agreement on four basic points: on the escalation of pensions according to increases in the cost of living; on the level of the yearly maximum pensionable earnings; on the amount of earnings which will be exempt from contributions, and on the removal of the earnings test in respect of retirement pensions for those aged 65 to 69. I would propose very shortly to introduce in the House legislative amendments concerning the escalation provision and the raising of the yearly maximum pensionable earnings for 1974, followed by the remaining amendments as soon as possible thereafter.
Federal-provincial working parties were set up last April to begin study of the propositions on the income supplementation strategy, the social insurance strategy and the employment strategy, as outlined in the April working paper. Another federal-provincial working party on the social services strategy was established at the recent meeting of federal and provincial deputy ministers of welfare. Mr. Speaker, I am personally encouraged by the spirit of co-operation which has been shown by the governments of the provinces toward the review of Canada's social security system. I am confident that given the good will that has prevailed to date, we shall be able, within the next few years, to set in place a social security system which will ensure a better standard of life for all Canadians.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister entertain a question? I ask him whether, in order to help us in the course of this debate, he would provide statistics for all the provinces. The hon. gentleman selectively used statistics to support his arguments, but I believe it would be very useful if we were given statistics relating to all the provinces. For example, it would be interesting to know which province has the highest ratio of children under 16.


Marc Lalonde: Some of those statistics are available as appendices to the working document on social security which was released in April. If there are other figures which the hon. member would like to have I would be pleased to make them available, either in the course of this debate on second reading or at its conclusion, or when the bill is being considered by the committee. I would be pleased to let hon. members have all the statistics which are at my disposal in this respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further question to the minister before he resumes his seat? The hon. gentleman said a few moments ago that one of the results of the conference held with his provincial counterparts earlier this month would be the introduction of two bills to amend the Canada Pension Plan. May I ask whether, as another result of that confer-

ence, he will be introducing a bill to amend the Canada Assistance Plan?


Marc Lalonde: There was, indeed, an agreement in principle with regard to cost-sharing between the federal government and the provinces in cases where universal programs in areas previously covered by the Canada Assistance Plan are introduced by the provinces. Any cost-sharing by the federal government would necessitate amendments to the Canada Assistance Act. However, a precise formula still remains to be worked out between officials of the federal and provincial governments. The process should take a few weeks but I hope agreement can be reached reasonably soon. Nevertheless, I would not expect that amendment to the act could be introduced before the end of this year. At any rate, if it cannot be introduced by the end of this year I hope it will be introduced early in the next session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can try.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that I plan to support this measure although I am very doubtful, after hearing the minister for the last ten minutes, whether one of the former leaders of his party would support him were he here. Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to talk about Canada having 50 million people. If prosperity is an inducement to a diminution of family size, and if this measure is an important measure contributing to prosperity, we are, in fact, contributing here to a diminution of the population growth rate and Sir Wilfrid Laurier would therefore be most disturbed.
I think I know what my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was really asking the minister. He wanted to know which province had the highest birth rate, and you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, since he was asking for this information, that it is the Province of Newfoundland, exceeded only by the Northwest Territories where the birth rate is 48.6 as against Newfoundland, where it is 34.1 followed by Prince Edward Island with 27.1. If I followed the Minister's logic I would say that these were the three least prosperous areas in Canada. I should like to say that if I am supporting this measure, as I am, it is not because I regard it as a deterrent to population growth in this country.
I should like to say that this is another of the measures that causes us some difficulty in exercising our deliberative function in the House of Commons. We must, of course, in our federal structure have constant, frank and cordial communications, with the provinces but I am often troubled in these realms of dominion-provincial relations when we in this chamber, the people's representatives gathered together in Canada'a national assembly, are presented with a fait accompli.
How much better would it have been for our side of the co-operative federalism exercise had the minister proceeded to open up the measure for debate, though perhaps only limited debate, last July so that those of us who represent the people federally in this legislature might have been given the chance to present our ideas. This strikes me as a very sound proposal and a very prudent one when we have a minority government. Indeed, I think it would be a good
October 15, 1973

thing under any circumstance; it is the sort of thing that would be very valuable.
I do not have very much time before the hour of five o'clock comes upon us.


Mr. Baker:: Take it all.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have been urged by my colleague to go all out and use the whole five minutes, so I think I will do that. I always like to hear the minister, even when he is partisan, though he was not today. However, I am a little unhappy-indeed, I am profoundly disturbed-that at a time when the country faces an economic crisis of pressing gravity the response of the government time after time is to throw out another welfare measure. In the emergency session in August and September it was the minister who came through with measures. There was a little change to old age security, an alteration here, another there, adopting policies that the opposition had suggested long ago. In face of this grave and terrible situation of galloping inflation, this modicum of relief is not sufficient to meet the mountain of need of the Canadian people.
We have a government that is clearly, obviously and tragically without an economic strategy. Without such strategy it relies on tactics. In face of inflation, a chronic case of unemployment and a continuum of economic stagnation, the government has but one response: Send in the welfare minister, who must gallop to the relief of the whole group. Where are the mighty economic ministers of this government? Cannot they take up arms in the fight against inflation? All that the Canadian people have to do today to reach a judgment on the fighting capacity of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in economic matters is to read the answer that he gave the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) just a few hours ago. Where is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie)? He has not been in Russia the whole time; where are his moves in this important area? And what is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) doing? At this point I am running out of giants in the field of economics!


James Aloysius McGrath: Not difficult to do with the government over there.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Why are these ministers so silent, so supine, so superlatively recumbent in face of the cost of living volcano that is shaking Canada's economic structure to its very roots? Is nothing forthcoming to strengthen the economy of this country and to halt the advance of grievous inflation? Certainly the minister, despite his best intentions-and he is not always at his best-cannot cope with this problem. We cannot welfare ourselves into a sound economic society. We cannot capsulize palliatives enough to overcome the economic agony of the Dominion of Canada.
While we support this bill-because it does provide some measure of relief-we ask for, indeed we cry out for meaningful action on a forward front of economic strategy. As far as I and my colleagues are concerned, we do not think this measure requires a long debate in this chamber. But it does require very serious study in committee because this bill, unlike the one which was passed in September, has a good deal of complexity which needs
Damage to Shoreline by Passing Ships
examination, scrutiny and further elucidation by the minister.
There are provisions that please me. Those relating to school attendance are certainly an improvement. There is no reason for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to become the giant truant officer for the whole of Canada. So the proposal is a great improvement. I am also glad that Canadian citizens who serve abroad will derive benefit from this bill.
May I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs-Disability pensions, action to eliminate backlog of applications; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Provision of educational films to school boards-government position; the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Public Service- Appeal against decision condemning red circling-Request for review of practice and appropriate legislation.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking action, wherever necessary in the inland navigable waters of Canada, to prevent damage to shorelines, dykes, homes, lands and other public and private property caused by the passage and manceuvering of ships and boats and other vessels.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion before the House is to encourage the government to take a look at the provisions of the law as they now stand which govern damage done to shorelines by boats in our inland navigable waters. When the present law was first brought before parliament and passed, the situation was far different from what it is today. The law as enacted at that time

Damage to Shoreline by Passing Ships
made provision that the federal government was responsible in the main for damage caused by the wake from freight-laden ships to the banks of inland waters and rivers. Later this provision was amended to include any damage that might be caused by a change in the motion of the waters due to the building of any government dock, wharf of marina where it could be amply proved that the existence of such a structure changed the current to such a degree or changed the normal flow of the water to such a degree that it caused monetary hardship to the owners of adjacent property.
Mr. Speaker, the course of events in this country has changed the situation which these laws were designed to cover. When they were adopted most of our navigable waters and the banks adjacent thereto were owned by the Crown. Along the shores of these waters there were many homesteads, and the homesteaders based their livelihood on lumbering and hunting. There was some agricultural activity, but not of an intensive nature. In those days these lands did not have the value they have today. This shoreline is today very valuable. We find many private dwellings and estates in these areas. We also find rich farmland and a great deal of industrial development, and I have in mind marinas, motels, hotels and other like accommodation for tourists from this and other nations.
The damage caused by the wakes of boats plying these waters is considerable in some areas, and the cost of keeping the water back from low-lying areas is high. The people who own this property should not be responsible for the constant repair of dykes and shorelines being eroded in this manner. It is my contention that the federal government should be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the shorelines on our navigable waters.
Many tourists are being encouraged to come to this country these days, and many of them here by boat. This traffic is especially concentrated in certain areas in Ontario adjacent to our great bodies of water. Many tourists from the United States have easy access to our resort areas. In my own area large flotillas of pleasure craft traverse the waters visiting various towns and cities. This represents a tremendous source of income to the merchants and those who provide these tourist services.
While there is a problem in relation to the erosion of our shorelines, certainly the solution is not to discourage tourism. These people plying our rivers and lakes bring in thousands of dollars, but the damage to our shorelines is tremendous. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that some two years ago a number of citizens tried to stop the tourists travelling in the waters in my area. Many signs were put up asking these tourists not to use the river, and there were verbal exchanges between tourists and those on the shore. I understand that there were fruits and vegetables thrown at passing tourists. This is something that should be discouraged as the tourism industry represents a tremendous asset to this nation as a whole. Financially, this industry is one of our most profitable and we want to encourage it in every possible way.
The purpose of the motion before the House is to request the government to give consideration to a revision of our prevailing archaic laws under which these boats are

plying our navigable waters. These laws relate to domestic and foreign traffic. The traffic during our tourist season represents many times the traffic that normally travelled these waters when these laws were put into effect. It seems to me that we should take the same approach at the federal level as we take at the provincial level, treating our waterways as we treat our highways. We should no longer think of our navigable streams in terms of the horse and buggy days.
Years ago when these laws were brought into effect our highways in this country were only small trails which gave access to horses and wagons. With the advent of the automobile the governments in this nation found it necessary to upgrade our highway systems, and this has been carried out successfully. It seems to me that we should take the same approach in respect of our navigable waters.
When damage is done along our highways, the departments of various governments are quick to act. This is particularly true in respect of our Trans-Canada Highway. Surely, this is the approach that we must take, as our waterways will be used more and more in future rather than less, particularly as the tourist industry increases. We must do something now because those who live on the shores of these waterways cannot afford the tremendous financial cost of repairing and maintaining the shoreline.
An attempt has been made to limit the speed of tourist boats plying the waterways in order to lessen the damage caused by the wakes of these boats. There is a speed limit in effect on most of our rivers, and that limit is enforced admirably, but it has become apparent that speed limits by themselves do not provide a solution. We have observed recently that speed alone does not cause the damage. Many of these vessels travel at reasonable speeds, but because of the size of the vessels the wake or the wash is exceptional. It seems that we must revise our laws in order to bring some semblance of order out of what is quickly becoming a chaotic situation. Many of those who own the shore property are boat owners. Some of them operate marinas, and it is a joy to behold how carefully these people preserve and maintain the rights of other owners of shoreline property.
The purpose of this bill is to alleviate the burden on the shoulders of those who own shoreline property. I hope it finds favour in the House, and I hope that something can be done to rectify what is now becoming a very grievous situation, not only in that area I have the honour to represent, but in all areas where there are navigable waters used by our own boat owners and many tourists.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion because, as the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) has pointed out, the problems which exist in his area also exist in my area in Ontario. The problems created by the rapid speed of boats and ships of one kind or another is considerable. Shoreline erosion is a very definite problem. Right in my neighbourhood a number of small pleasure craft, yachts and even larger boats, move up and down the river creating erosion problems.
This difficulty has been increased by the creation of a provincial park further up the river. The erosion problems are considerable, but I must point out that the federal
October 15, 1973

government is working on the problem. I think hon. members should know a little bit about what the federal government is doing. While the government is making an effort, there are other things that could be done.
On April 11 of this year, the St. Clair and Detroit River Vessel Speed Regulations were gazetted. The Ministry of Transport established these regulations for the purpose of navigational safety, the preservation of navigational channels and the protection of riparian interests. The speed limits apply to all vessels, other than pleasure yachts, having an over-all length of 65 feet or more. They were established after months of lengthy discussions with interested parties. They are based on extensive technical studies and field observations conducted jointly by the engineering staffs of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
The schedule to the regulations specifies the maximum upbound and downbound speed, expressed in miles per hour over the bottom, in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers from Fort Gratiot Light to the Detroit River Light, excluding Lake St. Clair. These regulations will be complemented by similar regulations' established by the American authorities for those parts of the river under their jurisdiction. Enforcement of the regulations is being carried out in the Detroit River by ministry officials and the RCMP with the aid of a shore installation which enables measurements to be made over a known distance to determine the speed of passing ships. From May 25 to September 13 inclusive, 707 commercial vessels of 65 feet in length or over were monitored passing the Amherstburg area.
I keep bringing up the point of vessels 65 feet and over because I think one area where improvement can be made is in the reduction of the length of boats to which these regulations apply because, although this would not apply to Lake St. Clair, such boats cause damage in the smaller lakes and rivers. Of this total to which I have referred, approximately 5.5 per cent exceeded the speed limit sufficient to warrant legal action being taken. A chronic offender appeared in court on September 20 and pleaded guilty. He was fined $50. I consider this fine to be rather small considering the damage done to shorelines. Warning notices have been sent to the remaining offenders. The intention is that all vessels exceeding the speed limit will be prosecuted. I think operators of vessels should be aware of this warning, and I think we should be sure that we follow it up. I hope that fines in excess of $50 would be more the rule than the exception.
In drafting speed regulations of this type, it is necessary to take into consideration the interests of the marine community as a whole. This requires the establishment of speeds that will be realistic and meet, as far as possible, the conflicting interests in the area. Speed limits that are set too low will impose unfair economic burdens on commercial vessels; these added costs will eventually be passed on to the general public when purchasing consumer products. Conversely, speed limits that are too high may cause extensive damage to shore property and, in addition, high speeds may encourage unsafe navigational practices to the detriment of all concerned.
Damage to Shoreline by Passing Ships
An amendment to the St. Clair and Detroit River speed regulations was given Privy Council approval on the 31st of August, 1973, and published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, on September 26, 1973. This amendment will give these regulations more flexibility by allowing for a temporary reduction of speed limits, as circumstances require, in any part of the river to which the limits apply. This requirement for more flexibility has become necessary due to exceptionally high water levels in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers which has brought strong protests from riparian interests who have been exposed to extensive property damage.
I can understand the need for flexibility depending on water levels, winds and so on. In addition, it has been proposed that the regional director for the central region, marine services, Ministry of Transport, be granted the power to temporarily lower the speed limit for the safety of navigation or for the protection of persons or property at or near the shore. A speed limit established by the regional director will come into force upon its publication in a notice to shipping or a notice to mariners and will remain in force until its modification or cessation is published in a subsequent notice to shipping or notice to mariners. Speed limits are in force in many of Canada's public harbours and are administered by the various harbour authorities. This is certainly the case in the harbour that is in my constituency, the Thunder Bay Harbour.
In particular, the Ministry of Transport has encouraged the Windsor Harbour Commission to enforce speed limits for vessels of less than 65 feet in length within harbour commission boundaries. Between Montreal and Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is responsible for the establishment of maximum speed limits. Seaway Notice No. 4 of 1972 sets the limits in specified sections of the waterway for vessels in excess of 40 feet in length. These limits are as a result of extensive studies that have taken place over many years. The objective in the St. Lawrence is similar to that in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers; to establish realistic speeds that will meet the requirements of the marine community as a whole.
A further seaway notice No. 5 of 1972 introduced, as a result of wave investigations, speed limits of 13 miles an hour over the bottom in the Canadian waters of the St. Lawrence River in the area from Grenadier Island to Howe Island. On May 11, 1972, the St. Lawrence Seaway reaffirmed the speed limits in other areas of the system and brought to the attention of mariners the fact that complaints were still being received from the public regarding excessive vessel speeds causing shoreline property damage and creating the risk of possible serious injury or loss of life. This notice also warned the mariner that surveillance crews were using radar to enforce the speed limits on a round-the-clock basis. A reduction of the maximum speed by the St. Lawrence Seaway for the Beauharnois Canal was promulgated in seaway notice No. 9 of 1972.
On March 21, 1973 the St. Lawrence Seaway re-established speed limits in the river between Montreal and Lake Ontario. The notice of March 21 was followed by notice No. 7 of 1973, dated March 27, 1973 which included a plan showing the designated speed limit areas in the Montreal-Lake Ontario section of the seaway. This notice

October 15, 1973
Damage to Shoreline by Passing Ships advised mariners of the necessity of imposing temporary speed limits due to the present high water levels. It also included a warning that surveillance crews would be enforcing the speed regulations on a round-the-clock basis using radar equipment. This is extremely important. If we have regulations they must be enforced on an around-the-clock basis because the shoreline does not go to sleep at night and can be damaged at one time as well as at another. Mariners were requested to exercise vigilance in adhering to the prescribed limits; failing to do so might cause shoreline property damage and create the risk of possible serious injury or loss of life. The following are the temporary speed limits. In Parts of Lake St. Louis 12 knots to 13 knots, depending on the width. Between Ogden Island and Blind Bay, 14 knots, and between Bartlett Point and Tibbetts Point 13 knots.
The rising water levels in Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River were in April, 1973, reaching the point where shoreline and property damage could result from normal vessel speeds. All predictions based on close monitoring indicated that this point would be reached within the following few days. Due to these facts, the Canadian and American Seaway authorities jointly announced that they had reached agreement on further temporary speed reductions. In general, vessels would be limited to a maximum of 12 miles an hour between Tibbetts Point on Lake Ontario and Lancaster, Ontario on Lake St. Francis. In making this announcement, Dr. Camu and Mr. Oberlin said:
These further speed reductions are being made in recognition of the serious threat which the forecast high water poses to the citizens on both sides of the waterway. We have called upon the shipping industry to join us in recognizing the emergency conditions by strict adherence to the prescribed limits even though the efficiency of the waterway will be significantly reduced as a result of these restrictions.
When vessel speed limits are established they are based on the results of continuing field studies which take into account a number of factors including vessel speed, wave height, shape of hull, width and depth of channel, current velocity and other related criteria. While all these points are carefully considered in arriving at a speed limit, the effects of high water levels are also given substantial consideration with respect to the areas under study, the use to which the waters are to be put and the extent, development, condition and proximity of the shoreline.
On April 10, 1973, notice No. 8 was issued by the Seaway, superseding notice No. 7 of 1973. This notice further reduced the speed limits in force and, in addition, included three areas previously not affected.
Notice No. 9 of May 8, 1973, imposed a temporary speed limit of 11 miles an hour over the bottom in the area of the Canadian middle channel for all vessels in excess of 40 feet in length.
During the latter part of this summer, the water levels on Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River were receding to more normal conditions. This is not the case in the upper lakes, and certainly not the case on Lake Superior, so we have a year or two before we can expect that situation to occur. As a matter of fact, with the closing of a couple of the locks at Sault Ste. Marie we can

expect the levels of Lake Superior to be high for two or three years, possibly even higher than they were this year. If there is any significant run-off this spring, we may have considerable shoreline flooding and damage next summer when the high water usually occurs, that is about the first of August. As a result of the water levels on Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River receding, some of the temporary speed limits were removed. However, notice No. 15 of August 15, 1973, while expressing appreciation for the co-operation of pilots and masters during the high water periods, continued to stress that their co-operation in adhering to the speed limit was essential.
In the period from April 19 to July 20, 455 commercial vessels were checked. Of this total, 55 were found to be exceeding the speed limit, 30 offenders received letters of warning because they only exceeded the speed limit by a small amount, and six had recorded violations and were fined between $100 and $300, very small fines considering the damage that was done. The charges against the remaining 19 violators are still being processed.
On May 4, 1973, the Ministry of Transport published notice No. 417 to mariners warning mariners of the damage caused by the excessive speed of ships and boats. This notice would also be published in the annual edition of "Canadian Notices to Mariners":
During recent years, there has been a marked increase in the damage caused by draw-off and wave disturbance generated by the passage of ships and boats.
In addition to damage caused to wharves, boat houses, small boats, moored ships, and erosion of the shoreline, there is also the attendant risk of causing serious bodily harm to persons in, on, or near the shore, particularly children.
The amount of draw-off and the size and intensity of the waves at any given speed varies with the hull form and draft of each vessel. Other factors include the proximity to the shore and objects concerned and the configuration of the channel.
Existing water levels must be taken into account since high water levels tend to increase and extend the damaging effects of a vessel's passage beyond what would otherwise be expected.
Masters, pilots and owners of vessels may be subject to court action for damages sustained by injured parties as a result of damage or injury caused by the passage of their vessels.
Regulations designed to control this type of damage would require speed limits sufficiently low to prevent damage by any type of vessel. This might impose on some vessels unrealistic speed limits and cause undue economic and recreational restraints.	,
Control of vessels' speed limits by regulation can be avoided if persons in charge of the navigation of vessels, who best know the individual characteristics of their vessel, exercise restraint and reduce speed as necessary, taking into account all factors that may contribute to or aggravate the damaging effects of draw-off and wave disturbance-
Whereas many speed restrictions are of a specific nature, tailored to the needs of a particular area, this notice is general in nature and is intended to apply in all Canadian waters. The notice is reprinted yearly in the "Canadian Notices to Mariners". This publication is one that must be carried on board all ships in waters under Canadian jurisdiction under the charts and publications regulations.
The problem of vessel speed can also be approached in another way. The boating restriction regulations provide a means of control where the operation of boats creates specific problems such as noise nuisance, danger to other
October 15, 1973

craft or to swimmers, or erosion of the shoreline by wave action.
The purpose of the regulations is to restrict or prohibit some or all types of boating activity in specified areas or bodies of water. Provision is made in the regulations for: first, the imposition of speed limits; second, the limitation of the height of wash from vessels; third, the prohibition of water skiing, and fourth, the prohibition of boating in general. These various restrictions are listed in the restrictive schedules appended to the regulations.
In order to have a restriction or a prohibition imposed on a given body of water, a local authority such as a municipality makes application to the appropriate provincial authority which may, after assessing provincial interest in the matter, make formal application to the federal government to consider including the body of water in one of the restrictive schedules. The federal government may then, after ascertaining that there is no overriding federal interest in the matter, impose the desired restrictions.
The regulations provide for police officers or persons designated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) as peace officers to enforce the regulations. Provisions are made for fines of up to $500 for infractions. I believe that the limit of $500 is unreal because the damage done can be far in excess of that amount of money. In fact, often what is damaged cannot be replaced. When a portion of shoreline consisting of three or four acres falls into the waters, as happened in our area not so long ago, how does one assess that kind of damage? I think that to be realistic, fines in excess of this amount, fines that relate somewhat to the damage, should be enforced.
The provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta have already designated departments to which application for boat operation restrictions can be forwarded. A preliminary study has been carried out regarding a vessel traffic management program for Canada. It is anticipated that a firm policy will be established and a national program developed as a result of this study.
Various forms of vessel traffic management have been in use in Canadian waters since the early 1960's. These systems were developed to fulfil particular local requirements. Since the mid-1960's, major changes and developments have occurred in the marine transportation field which require vessel traffic management systems to be established on a national scale. These changes include the introduction of the Very Large Crude Carrier and the concept of transshipment of crude oil and oil products. Of course, we all aware of the size of some of these supertankers. They include the introduction of containerization and other similar shipping practices, the increasing movement of all types of cargo by marine methods, major oil exploration activity in the Arctic and on the east and west coasts, a proposed west coast tanker route, and the development of supertanker terminals on the Atlantic coast.
In conclusion may I say that I support the intent of the motion. I think we have a very serious shoreline problem, particularly in view of the high water level of the Great Lakes and the systems leading to and from the Great Lakes. I believe that the regulations should be more strictly enforced, that smaller vessels should be included, vessels of ten or 12 feet, and finally, that some of the fines
Damage to Shoreline by Passing Ships
should be increased so that they are in relation to the damage that is done.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the official spokesman for the government has laid his hand upon this motion and given it his blessing and, presumably, the blessing of the government. Certainly the sponsor of the motion, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) is in agreement with it, as are we. I did not see any members of the Social Credit party rising to speak, but they can express their own views. Therefore, in light of the importance of this matter I wonder if an attempt could be made through you, Mr. Speaker, to assess whether the House would be disposed to make an order that the proceedings be interrupted at five minutes to six o'clock to vote upon this motion. Would Your Honour test the House to see whether this suggestion meets with the approval of hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: If that approval were given, I would shorten my remarks to simply declaring my support for the motion and let other hon. members have their say between low and five minutes to six. I wonder if I could ask for the consent of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will recognize that his suggestion is quite improper. There is no procedure in the House for testing opinion in this way. If the hon. member wants to make his remarks, then when the time comes it will be up to Mr. Speaker, if no further speakers rise, to ask consent of the House.


Frank Howard: I do not need to lecture you, Mr. Speaker; you know the rules far better than the hon. member. The House can make the order by unanimous consent. I am asking that that be done, and if it is we will continue with the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member is aware that there is a difficulty here. If we make an order at this time, the hon. member will lose the right to complete his remarks. It is the view of the Chair that there is not the kind of consent that the hon. member seeks; therefore I would ask the hon. member to complete his remarks.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would willingly forgo my right if for once in this House we could get hon. members, especially those in the Liberal Party, to quit lobbying matters to death and talking them out.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member and of Your Honour that on two separate occasions in this House I have accepted bills from his party which we did not talk-out during the five o'clock proceedings. If he does not know that, it is time he did and took notice of it.

October 15, 1973
Damage to Shoreline by Passing Ships


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the honourable and mouthy parliamentary secretary obviously missed what I was saying. It is not a question of relying upon his generosity; it is a question of permitting the House to make a decision. We should not have to rely upon the graciousness of the hon. member for Winnipeg South, or wherever he is from-


An hon. Member:: St. Boniface.


Frank Howard: -from St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), the parliamentary secretary, or anybody else on the government side to tell us how generous, friendly and willing they are to accept specific ideas put forward by members of the opposition. I am saying that there should be a right inherent in the rules to permit an hon. member to move a motion, to introduce a bill and to have it accepted or rejected on its merits, and not on whether the hon. member for St. Boniface wants to pick and choose. That is the point I was trying to make.
The motion put before us by the hon. member for Kent-Essex has an element of deficiency about; certainly not from his point of view or from the point of view of the people living alongside inland water areas who are confronted with problems, but it has a deficiency. This matter was touched upon by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) at the conclusion of his remarks when he spoke about coastal waters and the effect shipping can have upon communities and lands and buildings there as well as inland.
I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the impact of shipping upon coastal communities. When I say the motion is deficient in this regard, it is only from the point of view of expressing the needs and feelings of people in these communities; it is not meant to refer in a derogatory way to the substance of the motion itself. I am sure the hon. member for Kent-Essex and others appreciate the need to think about this question in expanded terms.
In recent times we have oil damage caused to some of our coastal communities by oil tanker groundings and collisions. We think of the Arrow on the east coast, the Irish Star earlier this year on the west coast, the leak from the ruptured oil pipeline of Richfield oil refinery in the state of Washington which spewed oil all over the beaches in that area and the lower coastal part of British Columbia. More recently, we think of the two ships which collided in Vancouver harbour and spewed their oil all over the area. At the time, or just prior to the rupture of the oil line at the Richfield refinery in Washington there was a discussion in this House about oil tanker routes, a discussion about the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act as well as the alterations that were made to the Fisheries Act to deal with deleterious substances in waters frequented by fish and the like.
During the course of debates in the House, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) on numerous occasions assured us that in the absence of legislation and proposed changes to the Canada Shipping Act-because the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act did not apply to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but only to the Arctic area-the government had a contingency plan to deal with any accidental oil spills that might take place on our coasts. Upon the

heels of this declaration we experienced the effects of the broken line at the refinery to which I referred earlier and the inundation of oil in the Crescent Beach area, the White Rock area, the Boundary Bay area and the lower coastal part of British Columbia. We then discovered that the government's contingency plan consisted of voluntary help from school kids. The contingency plan was just froth and air; it did not exist. The cleaning of the beaches had to be done by citizens and students.
This appears to have been the case since that time. There is no contingency plan that I have been able to discover, there is no over-all plan, no concept of what should be done, especially in light of the decision of the United States government to build the Alyeska pipeline. It is proposed to bring oil by supertanker down the west coast via Alaska to Washington and California. These tankers will be routed alongside the coastal communities of British Columbia. The government does not seem to know what to do about the situation except wait and see how extensive the damage is and then deal with it. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. For the people of British Columbia and of the Atlantic provinces who are concerned about coastal routes, this approach is too careless.
The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, as we have said before, is one of the finest pieces of legislation in the field of preventing oil pollution to be found anywhere in the world. Its requirements are most stringent. It includes extensive requirements governing the construction of ships; it requires the installation of safety features such as certain types of valves and double hulls for ships that might be carrying oil in Arctic waters. This legislation was a commendable move by the government. The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act established a 100 nautical sea miles limit which extended off certain Arctic islands and the archipelago in that area: it extended Canada's authority 100 nautical miles seaward of the Arctic islands. The act applies to oil-carrying tankers.
The sad part is that this piece of legislation, the finest of its kind anywhere applying to oil tankers, governs an area in which there are no oil tankers operating. It applies to the Arctic, and nobody is hauling oil in or around the arctic. The oil that is to come from the North Slope of Alaska, from Prudhoe Bay, is to come across land. It will be taken across Alaska and down the west coast where the legislative requirements are not nearly as stringent as those contained in the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
We have said that in the absence of any other declaration on this matter-and no declaration has been made so far-Parliament should amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act so that it applies also to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In that way we could extend our authority in those areas 100 nautical miles farther than it extends now. We should consider such legislation because the hazards off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are even greater than the hazards in the Arctic. We ought to extend our authority 100 nautical milles seaward so that we could limit and control the construction of oil tankers plying those waters. We could then say to tankers coming under the jurisdiction of a foreign country, "If your tankers come inside our 100 nautical mile zone, they must have
October 15, 1973

double hulls, they must have installed the latest and best safety devices and they must submit to inspection by Canadians."
These ships should meet our requirements because we are trying to preserve our land. As well, we ought to say, "If you do not intend to meet these requirements, we shall require you to carry your oil more than 100 miles offshore; and please do not bother coming inside our particular zone because our land is more precious to us than any oil which any tanker may be carrying from one part of a foreign jurisdiction to another."
If this motion were to come to a vote, which I doubt, I would think of moving an amendment the concept of which would be to extend the provisions of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act to our coastal waters east and west. I have written out an amendment such a that but will not move it at this time. If the matter is to come to a vote, the amendment can be moved by a colleague or somebody else. My amendment would apply to inland waters, coastal waters, territorial seas and to those areas around our territorial seas. It would include a measure that would take into account contemplated damage from oil spills as well as from the simple passage and manoeuvring of ships in our waters.
Apart from that, the motion before the House has my full endorsement. Even though the parliamentary secretary suggested that my original request was improper, I think it would be fine if for the next few minutes before six o'clock the Liberal Party ceased and desisted from attempts to talk this motion out and allowed it to come to a vote so that Parliament could express itself on a matter as important as this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had not spoken so long, perhaps his wish would have been fulfilled. We can look at the clock and note the length of time for which he spoke. I think it could be said that the hon. member personally took the most time in debating this particular matter. I also take note of a comment he made about vessels operating more than 100 miles offshore if they do not meet certain requirements. That approach will not solve the problem. I find his attitude rather surprising. As I say, sending ships farther out to sea will not solve the problem. No matter whether ships are operating 50 miles or 100 miles from shore, oil that is spilled in one area can show up in another area.
Speaking on the motion, the problem of shore erosion is of concern not only to those areas of the country about which we are now concerned but to many other parts of Canada. This is a matter for harbour commissions, which have been discussing it for many years. Some of them no doubt are finding solutions, as are governments. They will continue to do so. The Department of Public Works, for example, discharges the federal government's responsibility for the construction of protection works along shores where ship-generated waves cause erosion.
The federal government has constructed shore protection works since confederation, although the major activity in this area began in the high unemployment period of
Damage to Shoreline by Passing Ships the 1930s. The construction of this type of project became a substantial item in terms of both cost and workload throughout the years, particularly since the end of World War II. During the period 1947-1967 the department spent about $25 million on shore protection works. The bulk of this work was carried out by the department along the St. Lawrence River.
In 1960, in an effort to establish a rational approach to determining the department's responsibilities and location of works, the department established the Shore Erosion and Protection Committee. The purpose of the committee was to investigate the following: (a) areas where erosion is taking place; (b) factors which may be contributing to this erosion; (c) design of protection works; (d) economic analysis of government activity in this field; and (e) upon completion of the initial investigation the committee would investigate and review specific proposals for the construction of protection works. In 1964 the structure of the committee changed somewhat and as a consequence it was renamed the Treasury Board Shore Erosion Protection Committee.
In 1966 cabinet approved a new policy governing federal participation in the construction of shore protection works. The cabinet directive provides as follows:
(a)	The Department of Public Works be authorized to construct remedial works and pay 100 per cent of the cost of such works only where the erosion can be attributable, by more than 50 per cent, to navigation or a federal government structure, and the value of the land to be protected exceeds the cost of such remedial works by 100 per cent.
(b)	Where erosion is caused for the most part by natural causes but where navigation or the presence of a federal government structure is a contributing factor the Department of Public Works may contribute to the cost of such structure in proportion to the effect these causes have on the erosion, provided that in no case this contribution exceeds 50 per cent of the works, which in the opinion of the department would provide adequate protection.
Technical studies have been undertaken by the Department of Public Works to establish criteria for assessing federal responsibility in cases where erosion is due at least in part to ship-generated waves. These criteria have been in effect since 1968. They are used to determine the degree of federal government responsibility for shore erosion resulting from wave action on the St. Lawrence River, the Richelieu River, the Detroit River and the St. Clair River. Once the degree of federal government responsibility is known, the 1966 cabinet directive dictates the federal government contribution in the construction of remedial works.


An hon. Member:: You are living in the past.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: This may be from the past, but it is still in order. The trouble is that some opposition members do not look back to find out what remedial action is available. Instead of shooting off their mouths when they do not know what is going on, they should at least listen to what is being said because it may benefit the areas which they represent.
It is interesting to note that in the summer of 1969, because of a number of urgent and extensive problems along the St. Clair River the Department of Public Works

October 15, 1973
Damage to Shoreline by Passing Ships
undertook additional studies to attempt to determine as closely as possible the effects of ship waves along the shores of the St. Clair River and the Detroit River. The report of this study provides relatively precise figures and procedures covering the wave energy transmitted to the shore from ships and waves. A report on the St. Clair, Detroit and St. Lawrence Rivers was prepared in March, 1970, by Marine Engineering and the Department of Public Works. The information contained in this report would be an asset in connection with the references being made at the present time.
I stated there had been some expenditures. In addition to actual expenditures for protection works in the province of Quebec, in Ontario-specifically on the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers-the expenditures have been as follows: 1966-67, $110,000; 1967-68, $700. I imagine that is all that was requested that year. In 1968-69 the figure was $110,000, and in 1969-70 it was $100,000. This makes a total of $320,700 over the four-year period.
With regard to the Fraser River in British Columbia, the funding for bank protection works is provided by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. This is principally because the major benefit is in the protection of dykes and in reducing the threat of flooding.
There should be a concern by all governments and the public in their commitment to environmental protection. The relationship of shore erosion to environment can be viewed as a loss of value to property, sedimentary pollution of rivers, harbours and lakes, real property loss, possible depletion of tax bases of local governments, loss of recreational benefits, decline of general area values, increasing importance of recreation manifesting itself in increased pleasure craft population and indicating a proportional increase in shore damage attributable to waves generated therefrom, legal aspects of ownership as related to the responsibility to maintain and repair the protection works when built, consideration of eventual expropriation or purchase of privately-owned shoreline by the Crown for public use and the relationship to provincial and national parks and playgrounds.
There is no doubt that all levels of government face many problems in this regard. Initial schemes are being developed in coastal waters. As an example, the Cheda-bucto Bay vessel traffic management system incorporates regulation, traffic separation, aids to navigation, communications, shore surveillance and pilotage which, obviously, are directed toward vessel safety which have as an ancillary benefit features which serve to reduce shore erosion. The same can be said for systems being developed at Chebucto head at the entrance to Halifax harbour and for the Strait of Juan de Fuca off Vancouver Island. Obviously, such schemes will be developed in restricted or congested waters. Consequently, when we move to the inland waters of Canada, shore erosion as a result of vessel movement will in all likelihood be reduced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-211, to provide for the payment of family allowances in respect of children to supplement the income of Canadian families and for the payment of special allowances to provide for the care and maintenance of other children, and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, in the four and a half minutes vouchsafed to me before five o'clock I was endeavouring, with my usual sweet reasonableness and modulated tones, to discuss the bill which the minister was good enough to bring before us earlier in the afternoon. I was referring with great concern to the inadequacy of the government's response to the present overwhelming crisis. I referred also to the importance of a measure such as this coping effectively with the broad spectrum and the heavy burden of our nation's economic ills.
The lack of a concerted attack on poverty and the failure of the present government to alleviate the hardship suffered by too many Canadians has gone on for far too long. The elimination of poverty must be one of Canada's most important goals. Support for children is only one part of any anti-poverty strategy; a comprehensive approach to social problems brought about by poverty requires that income protection be given to adults both with and without children. Family allowances are an immediate and short-term response to the solution of large-family problems.
In terms of aiding those in poverty, family allowances must be considered against the background of the rise in the cost of living. The increase from an average of $7.21 to $20 barely compensates for the rise in the cost of living since 1945 when the late Mackenzie King introduced family allowances to members of parliament of that day and to the people of this country. Had family allowances been tied to the cost of living from the outset, the figure today would be $19.35 per month. So $20 a month is not an overwhelming advance. I am not here to criticize that 65 cents; I am going to fight for it. But let no one try to throw over his shoulders the cloak of munificence and generosity on account of those 65 cents. We are in favour of it; but let us not, for God's sake, try to turn it into a gold mine for the Canadian people.
Increases in family allowances are but another example of the government's ad hoc approach to inflation. I don't want to quote Larry Zolf, because the press does not quote
October 15, 1973

me, but he once spoke of the present government as the "ad hockery night in Canada." The buying power of increased allowances has already been used up by the increase in the cost of living which has taken place during the past year. No one, surely, has to document this painfully obvious fact. Food prices are rising at an unacceptable rate, resulting in a serious effect on the nutrition of Canadians. A study carried out in Montreal shows that fully 20 per cent of the population lives in poverty and that 44 per cent of the city's slum families are undernourished.
Advice such as that given to consumers by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) to use "evasive action" when shopping, that is, to substitute for high-priced food items less expensive ones of equal nutritional value is, to put it bluntly, a lot of nonsense since, unfortunately, the prices of the latter are rising even faster than those of the higher priced items. Compare hamburgers with sirloin and you get the picture. Regrettably, unfortunately, but truly, the low income consumers today are the hardest hit by rising prices, especially the 25 per cent of Canadians-and what an appalling statistic that is-who are living below the poverty line. According to the Economic Council of Canada, one and a half million families, or 22 per cent of all family units in Canada today, are poverty stricken. Therefore, any ameliorative measures such as this are hardly conceived and executed in haste.
The Senate Committee on Poverty of 1971 stated that the over-all poverty rate was approximately 25 per cent, and that one Canadian in four was a member of a family unit whose income was below the poverty line. Canadians living on low and fixed incomes are further hit, as a recent ECC study shows, by the fact that "the general burden of taxation falls unfairly on lower income families when it is measured in terms of ability to pay".
Genuine government attempts to control the cost of living would be of more value to those living in poverty than an increase in family allowances which barely reflects the rise in the cost of living. Therefore, I call again for what I called for at 4.55 this afternoon-a meaningful, powerful and co-ordinated assault upon inflation, a concerted effort to buttress the economy of the country. This is what we must have and it is what we need.
I mentioned that this minister, and the whole area of welfare, is being used as the only apparent weapon to fight the terrible dragon of inflation. But even this minister's exertions must soon come to an end; he will run out of bills on the order paper, and what will we do then? Even Mrs. Plumptre has finished her cross-country safari, an assault made with almost as much noise and exactly as much success as the charge of the Light Brigade.
The minister referred to his satisfaction at increases in old age security. But what of the plight of the older Canadians whose pensions are already grabbed up by the greedy, insatiable maw of inflation? And if that is not enough, their nursing homes are taking up the slack, charging as much as they can as quickly as they can after the increase is put into effect; because these institutions, too, are gripped by a rate of inflation which is making this
Family Allowances
country a bad example among the developed countries of the world on the inflation spectrum. Among some of the most prestigious international economic bodies, we in Canada are being designated as the country least likely to succeed in its anti-inflation measures. What a prospect, what a reputation, what a profile before the world!
In so far as this measure offers relief to hard-pressed Canadians who have families, as I said earlier we of course welcome it and will support it. We will make no effort in any way likely to delay implementation of this measure. We want the cheques in the hands of the mothers of Canada in time. Indeed, I suggested some weeks ago that they should now be receiving $20 instead of the $12 provided in the interim measure, but my view was not accepted by the minister or the government.
However, with regard to the 100,000 Canadians with young families I must say again that, important though this group is, it is but one of a great body of hard-pressed Canadians. Let the rest not be forgotten as the minister takes as much credit as he can from his efforts.
The government has taken some time to get a meaningful family allowance measure into the legislative flow. We all remember the FISP bill of inglorious memory, and we remember the various plans which were put forward and later aborted during the last four years. This afternoon I expressed the need for a close and careful committee study of this bill. Some of the questions that spring to my mind are of a general nature and to a degree are questions of principle. Others are technical and administrative but none the less important.
In the first category, I should like to hear more about what the minister referred to as the bill's being a measure of regional distribution of income across the country. On the first page of his speech, which I now have available to me, the minister said:
In addition, it will advance the development of a more equitable regional redistribution of income across Canada.
A desirable goal, but I should like to hear a bit more about it. Perhaps the minister meant that with greater flexibility the individual provinces could mount a more equitable assault on poverty within their own bounds. That may well be so, and I trust the ministers of welfare who are concerned and knowledgeable about the matter have expressed their views. But we must ask if there is a danger of variations between provinces growing rather than decreasing as the amounts very from province to province under a highly flexible system.
An inescapable fact of our federalism is that the provinces range widely in fiscal capacity. They may be juridically equal, they may be peers constitutionally, but when we get to the realm of fiscal capacity we come to an area of painful inequality and widespread variation. Might we not be faced with a situation where the people of the poorer provinces will fall behind their fellow Canadians in the wealthier provinces in confederation? On this I should like further explanation and assurance. Is the Dominion Government, the great equilibrating agency of confederation, abie to guarantee, will it guarantee, a measure of equality or near equality to the people of all provinces? Was the bill founded on a clear awareness of this very serious question? I welcome assurances in this regard from the minister when we move into committee.

October 15, 1973
Family Allowances
In committee, too, we can hear more about other aspects. For example, I should like to have a little clearer explanation of the income tax aspects, having noted over the years so many faulty prognostications by so many departments of this government. I wonder how the minister can predict with such precision, as he did this afternoon, what the practical aspects of the bill will mean, without knowing how the fathers and mothers of the realm will decide who shall pay, who will claim, who will be the payer of the income tax. I think there might at least be some room for a little further study and reflection on that question.
We will also want to have this measure, which is but one measure in this field, more closely and meaningfully related to the goals set forth in the orange paper. We shall want some elucidation of the various new elements in this kind of measure. This is why I said earlier today that this was the kind of bill that required careful study in committee.
I think the interim bill was very straightforward and very simply written. It was drafted in such a way as to bring about easy comprehension so that it could be disposed of quickly in the House in general debate. This bill requires a good deal more study. As I read it over with great care, I am prompted to ask further questions which are more suitable to the committee than to this chamber. I do not know, for instance, from the bill on what date the minister is to table his reports. I do not get any clear picture of the mechanism through which the federal government can recover any overpayments which may be made.
The interim bill, as we note en passant, has no terminal date, and I presume I should not be concerned about any administrative or other flaw which might prevent the operative enactment of this bill by the date set out by the minister, January 1. I presume the interim bill will carry on, and probably that is why no terminal date was put in. A very important and serious fault, indeed a grievous error, is the issue of the cost of living increase. The bill is inadequate in this regard and I am surprised that the inadequacy has not been corrected.
In the resumed session of August and September, measure after measure was brought forward in the House. The House was moved to bring in recommendations in respect of the cost of living. Measures were provided whereby these could be enacted. Now I find that this bill is deficient in this regard. There should be a clearcut provision to the effect that the recipients of family allowance will have given to them regularly and automatically a sum corresponding to the annual cost of living increase. Anything less than that is unjust, improper and shows a considerable unawareness of the issue when dealing with the public service, old age security pensioners and the rest.
I believe such an amendment should be moved. I hope the minister will recognize the need for it. If he does, he will have the support of this part of the House. We have always asked for that realism to be reflected in legislation. We always thought the 2 per cent was fantastic nonsense, and ask again for a realistic figure. We ask that the legislation be written clearly and simply so that there is no convoluted development of somebody reporting back to someone and someone else making a decision. Let this

provision be written in so that the people of Canada, the would-be recipients of these measures, know exactly where they stand. For whatever time is left to this government they can be pretty sure there will be a lot of inflation, so they should have it written in. I think this is a very important and prudent suggestion.
I should like to speak longer on the bill, but I want to give ample time to the honourable and venerable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I always enjoy hearing from him on these measures, and also the representative of the Social Credit party. I say again that I hope we will soon be in committee, where we can study this measure and hear further from the minister on this bill which has considerable complexity and, while it is not by any means an answer to the inflationary evils which stalk the land, is something which for what good it will do we can welcome. To advance that good we will expedite the bill, giving it our reasonable consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we welcome Bill C-211. We welcome it because it will put additional dollars into the income of all the families of the country in which there are children. We welcome it also because the principle upon which this bill is based is essentially sound. Like the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), speaking as one venerable member to another, I like the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) much better when he is Dr. Jekyll than when he is Mr. Hyde. Today he was the doctor. Today he had a good case, and he did not spoil it by attempts to make partisan capital out of this piece of legislation.
I have referred to my friend the hon. member for Hillsborough in making this allusion to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I may say I shall probably come back to my friend from Hillsborough a little later, but at the moment I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the five minutes he had before five o'clock he certainly let the cat out of the Tory bag. To him this bill and the measure to increase old age security were welfare. That is all, just welfare. I do not mind his castigating the other ministers of the Liberal government for their failure to cope adequately with economic problems, but if that is all he understands about universal old age security, if that is all he understands about universal family allowances, namely, that these measures are welfare, I pity this country if my friend the hon. member for Hillsborough is ever minister of national health and welfare. As I say, I shall come back to that matter a little later.
First of all, there is another word or two I should like to say about my friend Dr. Jekyll, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I really enjoyed his speech today, as I enjoyed his speech of January 11 and several other speeches he has made, unlike other speeches which I shall not mention at this time. As I listened to him today, making it clear that he has an appreciation of social policy, that he understands what he is doing when he brings in improved old age pensions and improved family allowances, and when he tells us about changes to be made in the Canada Pension Plan, I realized that he was having a pretty good time.
I think the minister was genuine in his joy in making the speech he made this afternoon. But I found myself
October 15, 1973

wondering how much pleasure my friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have had if the election of last October 30 had produced a majority Liberal government in Canada. Does he suppose for one minute that in less than one year he would have brought in a couple of increases in respect of old age security, a couple of increases in respect of family allowances, and proposed increases to the Canada Pension Plan, as well as even a proposed change in the Canada Assistance Plan? Not on your life! We would have been lucky to get, in four years out of the minister or ten years out of the Tories, what this minister has been able to bring before the House of Commons in a period of less than 12 months. As I said on April 18 when the minister tabled his orange paper, what a difference October 30, 1972, made in the history of this country, particularly in the history of social legislation.
If some of my friends in various parts of the House think that I am being too generous in welcoming this legislation, it must be obvious that the reason we welcome it is that we know we are responsible for it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear interesting phrases such as, "Oh, come on Stanley" and, "Oh, that isn't nice." Well, Mr. Speaker, it is the truth. My friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), is agreeing. He knows, also, that the reason he has been able to bring in some measures respecting veterans is also due to the fact that on October 30, 1972, the people of this country did not elect a majority government that would have done nothing, but elected a parliament of minorities and gave us sufficient strength to demand the measures for which we stand.
So I say that we welcome very warmly, this piece of legislation. Until last month, September, family allowances had not changed at all except for the fact that the original schedule of $5, $6, $7 and $8 a month was reduced to a schedule of just two amounts, $6 or $8 a month. But until last month $8 was the top figure paid by way of family allowances-and it is the amount for which some of us voted in the House of Commons in 1944, nearly 30 years ago.


An hon. Member:: Holy smoke!


Stanley Howard Knowles: So we are
proud of the fact that by virtue of a bill which we passed in September of this year, the average family with children in this country is getting an increase in its income, in this month of October, of about $10 a month. Now, by virtue of Bill C-211, in January, 1974, the average Canadian family with children will have a further increase of from $12 to $16 a month. In a sense I pull these figures out of a hat, but they are based on an average family having two children and on the fact that some of them will have to pay income tax and some will not. Those who have two children and who do not pay income tax will have an increase of $16 a month in January over what they are receiving this October, November and December. So
Family Allowances
because this is, be it ever so small, nevertheless a contribution to the families of this country in their effort to cope with the rising cost of living , I say that we welcome this piece of legislation.
We welcome it, also, because of its simplicity. In a moment I may complain that it is not as simple as I should like it to be. Certainly it is not as simple as the bill that we passed in 1944, which consisted of only five pages. This one consists of 20 pages. But compared with the bill known as FISP, Bill C-211 is the ultimate in simplicity. I heard my friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough, a few moments ago refer to FISP as a bill of ignominious memory. I forget what his precise adjective was, but it was not far off that one. Under my breath I was saying to my colleagues that even so the Tories had voted for it. I remind the minister that the government which he joined after the election, and the department over which he now presides, presented us last year with that complete and utter monstrosity which was aimed at achieving selectivity on the basis of a means or a needs test which was completely and utterly unworkable.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And discriminatory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Again I say that but for the results of the election on October 30 we might have had that bill brought back to us again. This bill is simple but for one main feature, and is much more like the bill of 1944 in that it has no means test, no needs test and no complications of the kind that would have made FISP completely unworkable. The main reason, as I see it, that this bill consists of 20 pages rather than five is the flexibility that has been written into it under which the provinces, if they wish, may vary the amount of the allowance from the $20 norm that is laid down in the bill.
I listened with interest to the minister this afternoon when he indicated that it looked as though only two provinces will take advantage of that flexibility, one being Quebec and the other Alberta. I want to say quite frankly that I wish this flexibility were not necessary; I wish the payment of family allowances could be the same with respect to all the children of Canada, the same $20 a month. But I have no hesitation in saying that this is not a very high price to pay for a feeling of co-operation among the provincial governments and the federal government; and if this provision produces harmony and co-operation in this field, if this makes provinces such as Quebec and Alberta feel that they can go along, I suggest that that is not a very high price to pay.
We shall watch with interest what variations those provinces make in the basic $20 and, like the hon. member for Hillsborough, I should like to be told when we get into committee how the government proposes to deal with the situation if the figures that are set by those two provinces result in more than $20 a month on the average being paid into each of them. However, that is a detail which we can work out.
I trust, in so far as I can tell from reading the bill, that any overpayment that results because those two provinces set up schedules that are too high will not be collected from the individual. I gather that if any overpayment has to be collected or if any adjustment has to be made, it will be the province that will have to take care of it and not the
6882

October 15, 1973
Family Allowances
individual. Even with that complication which accounts for a good deal of the wordage of this bill, it is a small price to pay and we welcome its general simplicity, as well as the fact that we are back to the kind of legislation that we had in 1944 which simply says that for every child in this country up to a certain age there is to be a family allowance of $20 a month on the average.
Having said that, having made the point that the average is to be $20 a month, perhaps I may be pardoned if I spell out the obvious and say that the result apparently will not be the same in respect of every child. In eight of the provinces of Canada, and in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, the amount will be $20 per child, whereas in the province of Quebec and the province of Alberta there will be some variation, according to the wishes of those provinces, provided it adds up to the same amount in total, namely, an average of $20 for each child.
Not only is this bill simple in the sense that it provides for the payment so directly and really needs very little language to spell it out, apart from the flexibility pages, but it is very simple in its approach to the question of selectivity through the use of the income tax formula. I remember very well how, during the debate on FISP in the previous parliament, we pleaded for this formula to be accepted. We argued at all stages of the debate that a flat amount should be paid in respect of every child, on a universal basis, and that the way to make sure that the wealthy did not get more than they needed, the way to even things out if they needed to be evened out at all, was by means of the income tax system. We were even prepared to have a special income tax, if necessary, to make sure that this evenness was achieved.
The then minister of national health and welfare, now the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), stood in his place and said that this was so complicated, so ridiculous, and that the government should not be asked to put out huge sums of money with one hand, then turn around and with the other take some of it back in income tax. No, it could not be done in that previous parliament, that majority parliament, when the present Minister of National Health and Welfare was in the back room, instead of out front where he could do things. The present Minister of Labour said it could not be done. But this afternoon the new Minister of National Health and Welfare stood up and with great pride-part of that speech that he so enjoyed making- told us that the total amount to be paid out in a year under the new bill would be $1,830 million.
In the same section of his speech the minister told us, his voice still reflecting pride, that the estimated tax recovery would be $350 million to the federal treasury and a further $115 million to the provincial treasuries. Last year it could not be done, it was too complicated, it was crazy to pay money out with one hand and take it back with the other. In the previous parliament, when we tried to get the former minister to increase the basic amount of old age security we were told that was not the way to do it. But this minister, in this parliament of minorities, sees the light and realizes that it is sensible to make payments of this kind on a universal basis; any problem that is created because certain wealthy people get the payments can be taken care of through income tax.

I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare on being minister in a minority government. I enjoy the smile he is giving me right now. I suspect I have said things this evening that he has thought about himself. I suspect he realizes that if that party had won a majority on October 30, he would not be having the good time he is having in this parliament.
The minister does not mind being castigated by the hon. member for Hillsborough for bringing in too much welfare. The minister is enough of a social scientist to know that it is not welfare, but redistribution of income. Despite all the complaining that comes from the Tory benches, he is able to do this, not because he has a different Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), not because the cabinet has changed its view, but because this is a minority parliament, and a government that wants to stay in power has to decide whether it will go the Tory way or the progressive way in social welfare. The government seems to have decided, at least for a while, which way it had better go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have been giving some of the reasons why we have been welcoming this legislation. I might say we are proud of it. After all, we have had a good deal to do with forcing the hand of the government in this matter. May I go on and say that the basic philosophical reason for our support of this legislation is that far from its being the welfare that the hon. member for Hillsborough calls it, it is, be it ever so little, a measure for the redistribution of income.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: True, when you pay out welfare benefits on a means or needs test, it is welfare; but when you pay old age security to every person in Canada who is 65 years of age or over, when you pay family allowances to every family in this country that has children, that is not welfare; it is an attempt to effect some redistribution of income in this country which, to begin with, is so unevenly distributed.
My friends in the Progressive Conservative Party should think a bit about this and not see every payment that is made, especially those payments made on a universal basis, as just welfare. I get the impression that they really do not like it. I wonder just where we would be going if they were sitting on treasury benches instead of sitting on this side.


An hon. Member:: Ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of my friends who have not taken part in this debate say that we would be going ahead, but the spokesman for their party has made the position of that party on this issue very clear. This kind of thing is just welfare to them. They want higher minimum wages and such measures. They want tax concessions to corporations, but they do not call that welfare. When we vote universal concessions to the wealthy through corporation taxes, they do not call that welfare; that is getting the economy rolling.


An hon. Member:: Job creating.
October 15, 1973


Stanley Howard Knowles: Job creating, my eye! They have all the cliches. When it comes to a measure that to a very small extent does actually redistribute income, they do not appreciate it. They are going to vote for it-grudgingly. We are not voting for it grudgingly; we are voting for it with both hands because we like the idea of seeking to redistribute the incomes of the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad bent), when he spoke on September 11 on Bill C-223-which was the bill to provide a family allowance payment of $12 a month for October, November and December-went into this question rather fully. I do not intend to repeat all the statistics that he gave, but I am going to give some of them. I think one set of statistics that my colleague used on that day is very telling. The latest figures show that the income the people of Canada have for disposable purposes breaks down this way: the bottom 20 per cent of the population has 7 per cent of the income, the next 20 per cent has 13 per cent of the income, the next 20 per cent has 18 per cent of the income, and the fourth 20 per cent has 23 per cent of the income. However, the top 20 per cent has 39 per cent of the income.
I agree with my hon. friend for Hillsborough that it is a scandal that there are 4'A million people in Canada living under conditions of poverty, according to all estimates which have been made about poverty in this country. That is a particularly serious scandal when one realizes that those 4'A million people include 1.7 million children. That is one of the reasons legislation of this kind is so good. It tries to do something for children.
Those statistics, which encompass millions of people, I think are highlighted by the percentages I have repeated, which were given to us on September 11 by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. These percentages highlight the fact that, whereas 20 per cent of the people at the top get 39 per cent of the national income, the 20 per cent at the bottom get only 7 per cent. Actually, the 60 per cent at the bottom end of the scale get only 38 per cent of our total income, whereas the 20 per cent at the top get more than the bottom 60 per cent; they get 39 per cent of the income of this country. Do not tell me that there is no need to effect the redistribution of income in this country. Do not tell me that it is good enough if we keep chasing some of the other ministers who are responsible for other economic matters. We must take further steps along the lines we are taking today, and that we have taken in the course of this session, to achieve greater equality of income among the people of this country.
I know that some of my friends to my right who like to attack us as being a social security party and as being concerned about these things usually like to throw in the question, "Where is the money to come from?" The basic problem is the problem of how we are to distribute the wealth we are able to produce. No doubt my friend from Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), if he turns up tonight to make a speech, will probably indulge in his usual bit of
Family Allowances
humour about our wanting to make the poor richer and the rich poorer, and that we will all end up the poorer.
The fact of the matter is that as conditions develop in the world, and as shortages and problems arise from the fact that the resources of this planet are not limitless, we will need to take a more comprehensive approach toward establishing equality. This bill does not do it-good heavens, no! The minor redistribution that it will effect really will not touch the problem. But it goes in the right direction, and I commend the minister for being the member of a minority government so that he has been able to bring it in. I am sorry that the hon. member for Hillsborough only sees this measure as so much welfare.
We are dealing, as I say, with one of the most important economic problems that faces us, that of the redistribution of income. I am glad that in less than 12 months since the election of October 30, 1972, we have achieved a fair amount in terms of the old age pension, family allowances, veterans pensions and allowances, the pensions of retired public servants, retired members of the armed forces, retired members of the RCMP, and of various other groups. There is no doubt in my mind that had the election gone the other way, returning a majority of the government party, we would not have achieved these things. We welcome them. We commend the minister. We say to him, "Do not be so impressed by the statement of the hon. member for Hillsborough that you run out of things to do." There is still a great deal to do in this whole area as, indeed, he spelled out in the orange paper which he tabled in the House on April 18.
That orange paper of April 18 laid down a number of high-sounding principles with which I agree, although I felt there was a lot of sound in some of those statements. In particular, the paper made reference to the guaranteed income. I call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare to get over the notion that that is something which will take four or five years to bring into effect. I agree with him that that measure, together with the various other things he is bringing forward, is part of a total package. But I urge him to put some fire under his cabinet colleagues and to work day and night on this matter. I say that because we really will not have achieved the kind of thing toward which he is working in old age security and family allowances until we have a guaranteed annual income for all our people.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I have spent more time than I usually do when speaking on government measures, in pointing out those things that are good. However, you would not expect me not to find something wrong with this piece of legislation. The first point I want to make- and in speaking on this area that needs correction I agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough-has to do with the provision for increases in family allowances in relation to increases in the cost of living.
It is not many years ago that we did not have the escalation of any pensions. We finally got started in this area with the Canada Pension Plan. We began with a 2 per cent escalation for that plan and we finally amended the provisions of various other plans. Now we have established, with respect to many plans, that the escalation of pensions must match the actual percentage increase in the cost of living. However, we still have not done this for the
6884
October 15, 1973

Family Allowances
retired employees of Canadian National Railways, and we will deal with that in another debate. We still have not done it for retired employees of CBC, the Bank of Canada, and of a number of other government emanations.
However, with respect to government pension plans that are of general application, the principle has now been accepted that there must be an automatic increase, as spelled out in the statute, to equal percentage increase in the cost of living. In most cases that increase takes place annually, but with respect to the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement that increase now takes place on a quarterly basis.
You would think that that battle having been won, that principle having been accepted, the minister would write the same principle into this bill. But no, he has not done that. He has come forward with this bill which, under the provisions of clause 13, gives to the governor in council the right to propose increases related to the cost of living and then to submit any such proposal to the House for its approval. However, unless the governor in council takes action, nothing will happen.
I know-at least I suspect-why the government does not want to make provision for automatic cost of living increases in this legislation. It is afraid there might be occasions, especially if it were done on a quarterly basis, when it would have to pay a 2 per cent increase. Two per cent of $20 is 40 cents. Remembering a certain 42 cent increase, the government, I can imagine, does not wish to have legislation on the books that will increase family allowances by a few dimes at a time.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this can be avoided by a clause in the legislation which would provide for increases in terms of a full dollar. In other words, I will accept that the first increase should be $1 and the next increase another $1. I will go a step further and say that it would hardly be fair to require a family allowances recipient to wait every time for the full dollar because there could be a wait of many months during which time the recipient would be behind in benefits. I suggest, therefore, and I will certainly propose this as strongly as I can in committee, that when the cost of living has risen to the point where there should be an increase of 50 cents, the increase should be $1. Then, to carry this on, when the point has been reached at which the increase should be $1.50, the allowance should be increased by the full $2.
In other words, I am suggesting that the increase should be not less than $1, and to make up for the time lag the increase should be granted in advance, more or less halfway through the period, so that as the cost of living rises people who are drawing these benefits would receive some of their increase in advance, to make up for what they have missed in the weeks or months which have gone by.
The hon. member for Hillsborough came all out in favour of an automatic provision in the act. I support him in that. Perhaps we could do this with some other kind of formula. I have spelled ours out to make it clear that we are not talking without having thought the matter through. However, I very strongly support the idea that the country should know from the legislation what is going to happen. It should not be left to the governor in council.

Another comment I wish to make is that it seems fairly clear that this minister has a winsome way, not only in the House, when he is Dr. Jekyll, but he has done fairly well at getting co-operation from his counterparts in the provinces. The reports we get on the conferences he has held with the provincial health and welfare ministers sound very good. Because he has that effective working relationship with his counterparts in the provinces, I urge him to prevail upon them to make sure these increases in family allowances are not going to take the place of welfare and are not going to be subtracted from welfare payments being made in the provinces. I say in all of the provinces, and I say that advisedly.
I also urge the minister to work a little faster than I thought he was prepared to do when I asked him a question this afternoon with regard to bringing in a bill with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan. I agree we are dealing with a total package. The provinces, especially those that have universalized some of their services like payments to nursing homes, and so on, are going to suffer serious losses if there is an undue delay in amending the Canada Assistance Plan so that the federal government can pay 50 per cent, even where such programs are not needs tested. I realize a formula has to be worked out, but I submit this is terribly important to the provinces. In view of the good relationship this minister has established with them, I urge him to get the bill to amend the Canada Assistance Plan into this House so that we can pass it before we rise in December, whatever date that may be.
The other comment I wish to make is that I welcome the remarks the minister made this afternoon about the changes he is now in a position to make to the Canada Pension Plan. I welcome very warmly the removal of the 2 per cent ceiling on annual escalation so that all benefits under the Canada Pension Plan each January will go up by the full percentage increase in the cost of living.
Although the minister did not say it today, he has said outside the House there will be a catch-up factor. Those who have been receiving these benefits since 1967 will get an increase that will make up for the fact they only received 2 per cent for certain years, with the result some will get 10 or 11 per cent and some will get as much as 20 per cent. That is good. Let us get that bill in soon so we can deal with it.
I also welcome the announcement that the YMPE- yearly maximum pension earnings-level is to be raised. Contributors will be permitted to pay in a slight bit more per year. The pension that Canadians will draw at the end can grow to the point where by 1980 it can be in the order of $3,000 a year, instead of $1,200 or $1,300 as it is at the present time.
I also welcome the removal of the work or earnings from employment test between the ages of 65 and 70. I am sorry to hear the minister will have to bring in two bills. I was hoping all these things would be brought in before January. I also hope one or the other of those bills will do something about removing discrimination as between men and women to the extent it still exists in the Canada Pension Plan. I know that is apart from this bill, but it was part of the minister's speech. Like him and the hon. member for Hillsborough, I agree that our social policy is
October 15, 1973

one total unit and we have to look at all of these things together. I again commend the minister, as a member of a minority government, in being in a position to bring in legislation which at least moves in the direction of redistributing income. As he knows, we shall warmly and strongly support this bill.
[Transla tion]


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, we are truly happy to be able to speak tonight about family allowances and particularly about the distribution of our wealth. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said a while ago, it is very important that the wealth of Canadians be distributed logically and justly. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, there are many flaws in the distribution of our resources.
We were very pleased with the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who has made some important concessions. We admire this, but I wish to say immediately that these concessions do not go far enough because the cost of living has increased in a much greater proportion than the family allowances.
With this approach the excess wealth of Canadians will still not be distributed more evenly. The hon. minister's offer is better than nothing. We will support this bill but we want more because Canadians are producing more and more and can give more and more.
One of the reasons why I suggest that family allowances are not logically adjusted to the cost of living is that they have been hardly increased since their establishment in 1944-1945. And yet, in the other areas of the economy everything has multiplied by five, six or ten. It is in the name of simple justice and of the most elementary economic balance that we want family allowances to be increased.
To adjust them to the correct economic reality, family allowances should at least amount to $1 a day per child. Since there are about eight million children under 18 in Canada, monthly family allowances amounting to $30 would cost only about $300 million a month or nearly $30 billion a year. However, $210 million as compared with $30 billion are not more than a drop of water in the ocean. When we produce yearly $114 billion but consume only $60 billion we can say that the balance is $54 billion which certainly could be used to guarantee a logical revenue corresponding to the cost of living and the facts of life and give Canadian citizens the right to live.
This is what we are asking on behalf of all Canadian citizens and on behalf of all the 264 members of Parliament who have undertaken to administer the country in the best interest of all citizens.
In every family, we know it by experience, the youngest children always get the most attention. Everyone does his share. We must do likewise in Parliament: We must begin by taking care of the youngest Canadian citizens and guarantee them at least their individual vital right, knowing that if the young have everything they need, the adults will get by more easily in our society, a just society in a Canada united, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
Family Allowances
says, by the right to live. All citizens will be more strongly united at every other level of the community.
Let us establish once for all a basic standard of living for each Canadian citizen, for every child of 18, regardless of the salary or income of his father or mother, because it is his personal vital right. The child is entitled to it even before he is entitled to employment, capital or even education. The right to live is the first and the most sacred of all rights.
Let us assume now, Mr. Speaker, that we admit that we must increase family allowances, this must be done without any increase in taxes or in the cost of living. This must be done without lowering the purchasing power of other Canadians. This is the most important thing, Mr. Speaker. And we will introduce motions designed to make such a claim in the future. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, in order to increase the purchasing power of one segment of the population, we must decrease the purchasing power of the other. We must not take some income from a few citizens to transfer it onto other ones.
We know that in 1972, as I said earlier, national production amounted to $114 billion and that capitalization was $48 billion; we must determine whether we do not capitalize too much. I am sure that we capitalize too much and that we could use part of this capital to pay a guaranteed income to Canadian citizens because they need it, and this, Mr. Speaker, would be done without increasing taxes or the cost of living.
It is therefore possible to increase the purchasing power of children, without decreasing or reducing the purchasing power or other Canadians. Under this formula, Mr. Speaker, allowances will be increased, but they will be taxable. He who will be unhappy enough to earn between $6,000 and $10,000 a year will not get any family allowances; he will give more than he gets because his earnings will be a little higher than others. In our economic world where salaries vary between $7,000 and $25,000, everybody needs money and adjusts the expenditures of his family to his income. Therefore, if someone earns $25,000, he spends almost $25,000. Some people do save money but not many, Mr. Speaker, and they do not save that much. They must earn still more than that to be able to save. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill ought to provide also that tax exemptions be at least $5,000 for couples and $3,000 for single persons. If we give allowances such as the minister is proposing now and if we leave incomes subject to taxation as they are now, many citizens will not benefit much from family allowances. They will have to incur payments and that will not put the required purchasing power in the hands of taxpayers.
Purchasing power is best placed economically in the hands of the families, those who consume. Aged people are small consumers, but it is the families that consume most. They require reasonable tax exemptions in a system where the cost of living keeps increasing, where it is so high that tax exemptions are illogical. If we do not set tax exemptions at reasonable rates, family allowances that are being proposed will not bear fruit.
Mr. Speaker, what must be explained in a more detailed way is the way of governing and above all of taxing used by our governments, especially since the end of World War II.

October 15, 1973
Family Allowances
A new tax system then came into effect to promote increased capital profits for large corporations. Those methods at first certainly promoted production but on the long run, mainly because of increased capital profit commodities, that method became harmful, and the whole economy of this country is suffering from that and contributes to throw out of balance consumption and capitalization on a progressive production. That method contributes to destroy the national economic balance between the purchasing power of the people and the power to capitalize of large corporations, which is detrimental to all small individual and family businesses, to all economic activities of decentralized areas, of small or rural towns.
I already quoted figures in that connection; it would be needless to repeat them today. But now, Mr. Speaker, I want to look into the problem fully and seriously with the ministers concerned and their officials. The important thing is that there be no further postponement of the passage of this urgent piece of legislation providing for increased family allowances for all Canadian children under 18. I want rather to use the time at my disposal to move officially later on a motion to increase family allowances to $30 a month and setting out the way to pay them without causing tax increases, increases in prices or in the cost of living for any citizen of this country and the way to thus restore the national economic balance between individuals, families and corporations, between incomes, expenditures and profits, between taxes and reserves, between needs, costs and prices, between employers, employees and dependents, between production, consumption and capitalization at the national level and in the standard mechanisms of our regular monetary, economic and political systems.
We can, Mr. Speaker, make great changes. We can give much greater satisfaction to the people of this country. We can give them welfare within the framework of the present system because this system is sound. Mr. Speaker, it is only a matter of amending a few acts and regulations in order to allow the distribution to each citizen of a guaranteed income in a country which can produce aplenty. We have capitalized $48 billion in 1973 with 50 per cent of our work force, while the unemployed remained inactive. If the taxpayers were given enough purchasing power, we would witness all sorts of new developments and the disappearance of unemployment. We would see production increase, not only by $114 billion, but maybe between $175 and $180 billion, or even $200 billion, if we put everybody to work.
Because of credit restrictions and because too little is given too late, Mr. Speaker, our people are at their wit's end. They are always deprived of everything, they cannot undertake anything for lack of financial backing; on the other hand, when money is available, interest rates are prohibitive at 8, 10, 12 per cent, or even more. Under such conditions, how can our economy develop? In the system, we now use to develop our economy, it is necessary to increase tremendously the private and public debts. This cannot go on that way and taxpayers are more and more aware that when they receive $1 from the government, they give $6.

There must be an economic rebalancing and the best means for achieving this is to give Canadian children an adequate purchasing power based on the present facts and realities of our economy; this way, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to tell the people that we have done something. We will be able to tell the Canadian people, as well as the old political parties: We increased family allowances. But the old parties will not tell the Canadian people that by complicity, they let the cost of living increase and that they took billions of dollars out of the tapayers' pockets because of this increase in the cost of living. They will say, just as Mr. Bourassa does in the province of Quebec: We have not increased taxes for three years.
However, the cost of living has nearly tripled, which brings the government billions of dollars. I would say that governments are partly responsible for the increase in the cost of living because it equals an indirect tax which annoys taxpayers.
But the taxpayers will be more and more aware of this situation. Moreover we have to know where the money will come from and the Minister of National Health and Welfare clearly said that he had not found a magic wand and that money did not grow on trees.
Considering the overall statistics of our national economy, in 1973, it is easy to see that that would simply mean to collect the necessary billions of dollars to boost the purchasing power of all dependent citizens, out of current taxation and undue profits realized by large millionnaire and billionnaire corporations capitalized in the form of excessive profits, depreciations or reserves either provided or hidden, that are not taxed by our governments at the present time, in accordance with privileges or exemptions detrimental to our national economy as a whole aand especially to those individuals who must pay more income tax in relation to their income, so as to offset the cost of such privileges granted to corporations.
To show the importance of such income tax disparities between individuals and large corporations I will give the following explanation which is quite close to reality. Nowadays, for every $5 tax collected from individuals, the government collects only one dollar from corporation in relation to their income. So as to balance things out nationaly between individuals and corporations, between labour and capital, a flat amount of $3 would need to be collected from each individual. Hence the government would still collect $6 but the individual would see his tax reduced by 20 to 40 per cent. Corporations would not pay at a higher rate than individuals and everything would be in order and evened out to the satisfaction of all taxpayers throughout Canada.
This would be a way of finding the necessary capital in order to place in the hands of the taxpayers the economic component the nation needs to keep its balance.
Another even more effective means would be to cash part of the excess yield or overproduction, which would allow a balanced distribution of the purchasing power among the taxpayers, especially those who need it most.
I know very well that it is very difficult for all of you to accept immediately this program which, even much simplified, requires long explanations. Everything should be
October 15, 1973

demonstrated with tables, and this is what I intend to do in the future.
Once again, this will have to be done sometime or other, and the sooner the better, because the more we go ahead with our present methods of managing and planning our national economy, the more we remain in poverty, unemployment and inflation. And it is not by keeping the same administrative methods that we will correct this imbalance. It is absolutely necessary to change something and it would be best to change nothing in the structures, but only to improve and rectify the ratio between income and taxation, individuals and corporations and later on we could go further.
As a matter of fact, the problem is complex, but it doesn't mean that it is insoluble and that it must be neglected. On the contrary we should face it. People, especially the administrators of the country are equal to the challenge. There are almost 23 million citizens of various languages, races, colours, and religions. They don't have all the same level of education nor the same social status as in the rest of the world. There are 3.6 billion citizens in the world who are all equals irrespective of their racial, religious, language, colour, nationality, social status, age and sex difference. We have all been created with the same needs. We all need a decent home and the present system doesn't allow the citizens and the families to have a decent home. We need three square meals a day, and this is not possible under the present system. Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to restore the economic balance in order that this could be possible, since the country produces enough goods. If we had let western farmers produce goods and paid them to do so, if we had given them a compensated discount on the prices and built new warehouses, if we had filled up these warehouses, we could now help the hungry populations in Europe which need bread.
Canada has no more wheat to sell because we have prevented farmers from producing. We are doing the same thing in eastern Canada by setting quotas; almost 70 per cent of the farms in my riding have been abandoned. We are now short of some products, we have to import some and we let prices grow; we import butter, milk, all kinds of products, and prices go up. Whose fault is it, Mr. Speaker? We cannot blame the children, who do not have the money to buy what they need at prohibitive prices. Many families, Mr. Speaker, can no longer get the necessary meat because of excessive prices. If we had let farmers produce, meat would perhaps be cheaper. All this is the fault of the government and of those who have supported it. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the sun is shining for everyone, and air is not dispensed by the Canadian government, because the 264 ministers and members elected by the ten million Canadian electors for the maintenance of national stability among the 23 million Canadian citizens making up the population would be deprived of it.
Mr. Speaker, I would have many things to say, but I will merely point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people must establish some balance among families and companies among inflation, unemployment and poverty. This is how we must create that balance in the present structure of our economic, political, capitalist, conventional Canadian mechanisms, taking into consideration the huge nation-
Family Allowances
al production of 1973 and 1974. We do forget that fact, Mr. Speaker; allowances are granted on the basis of the revenue and on the basis of the production which could be distributed.
Such should be the basis of our financial distribution in order to balance our deficit ridden system. It must be based on the goods which can possibly and necessarily be produced. We could make a fair distribution and thus provide more happiness in our society. There would thus prevail more order and harmony in our society. There might be fewer political parties because new ones would emerge from the inefficiency of the old parties which would not have adapted to the realities of the time and would not have given the population what it is entitled to. Mr. Speaker, this is why we see so much dissatisfaction. This is why so many people are dissatisfied because of what is done. When we see what is produced, all that it is possible to have and impossible for the greater number to obtain, then Mr. Speaker, revolution is at hand.
In the province of Quebec a revolution is coming. During provincial elections, we have never seen people go so far and shake the "columns" of national and provincial institutions. We are overthrowing everything and if we do not take the possible logical means to bring about an equitable distribution of the riches we will soon witness a terrible revolution because it is already boiling in Quebec. I do not know if it is the same elsewhere but it is frightful in Quebec. Go to Quebec and see for yourself. In the next few days it will be frightful in the province of Quebec.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to review the bill once again and try to make it even more generous so that Canadians can enjoy the result of the work of earlier generations and do not have enormous debts to pay. And the more we progress in our country, the more we become indebted and the worse off the citizens are. There are techniques to stop indebtment. There are also means to allow the distribution of wealth and to make available to all Canadians all the services and technical means available to us. If science is so advanced, its purpose is to serve humanity, not to punish it. At the present time, the more science advances, the more humanity feels crushed by the burden of finance which takes control of the developments as they occur.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to participate in this debate. These are very important measures which will benefit a very large segment of the population. I believe the minister presented these measures in a very eloquent and sensible manner. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) gave us his usual, very appropriate comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave his very well considered opinions about social security in general and this bill in particular. I am always glad to hear from him.
This bill contains another point, that is, there are some innovations in it. It provides for flexibility from province to province. This, in reality, is a rather new interpretation of our constitutional regulations. During the past few months we have seen unfold most of the social security programs of this country. We have had the pleasure in this House of increasing old age pensions, increasing veterans'

October 15, 1973
Family Allowances
pensions and escalating them to the consumer price index. There are a great many forms of social assistance in addition to those. We look after the widows, the unemployed, the disabled and the injured. We have the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Assistance Plan. We have an enlightened National Housing Act and projected changes in the structure and operation of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Finally we come to one of the most important aspects of social assistance, namely, this bill which attacks the problem of assistance to poorer families in which there are children. Most working people can afford one or two children; any more than that requires almost a middle-class income. It is estimated that in 1972 the cost of raising a child was $700 or $800 annually at least. There are many variations in income in Canada. The minimum wage varies from province to province; it can start at $1.15 an hour and go up to $2 an hour. In one year's time, this means over $2,000 to somewhat less than $5,000. This is a big swing, but even this amount can only be earned by a man who works the whole year, particularly if he is on the minimum wage. In spite of this, in certain areas of Canada there is a huge variation in the amount of work available. Some people who have an annual income are well below the national norm. For instance, British Columbia is probably the only province where the minimum wage is somewhere near the lowest level of the poverty line.
As has a certain small minority in the House, I began to work many years ago during the depression in a farming community. People there could not afford new clothes, they could not afford new farm machinery, they could not pay doctors' bills and they could not give anything to the church; but they lived very well, at least so far as food on the table was concerned. So far as I was concerned, I could not afford to buy a practice in a bigger town, so I owed the bank for my car, for my house and for my practice. However, my kitchen and my cellar were full of meat and vegetables which I was glad to take in payment of my bills.
In 1933 when I moved into town, the effects of the depression were still very strong. Many fine young people were roaming from town to town, riding the rods. They could not get work in plants and had to live on a pitiful welfare allowance and depend on their neighbours' charity. I well remember a person in Port Colborne who tried to do his best to pay the town's welfare expenses. He had a heart like a washtub and always added a few dollars for large families. The situation at that time was deplorable and demoralizing.
Old age pensions were brought in many years ago. It was the first attempt at social security apart from the Workmen's Compensation Board. Most of our social services started to blossom after the Second World War. The family allowances program which was started in 1945 was adjusted in 1949 and again amended upward in 1957. To look after children aged 16 and 17, however, we had to add youth allowances. These were brought in in 1964, and of course families did not receive them unless the children attended school.
A few years ago you will remember that the Senate Committee on Poverty brought home many new things to most of us. It seems almost unacceptable in this fair Canada of ours when we hear it said that one-quarter of our population lives in poverty. The old truism still exists, that the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. It is just as true in Canada as it is anywhere in the world. Alongside this poverty group there is a large, middle-income group of average working people and professionals whose wages and salaries range from $6,000 up to $50,000 or $100,000 a year. Then there is a small group of very wealthy people. This group seems to be growing in number every day. It seems to be the thing to do in the modern world, to amass wealth. I suppose this is nothing new. The average workingman can afford many material goods. The list of expenses of the workingman include the house, the car, sometimes two to a family, coloured television, a snowmobile, a cottage, leisure activities, travel, pension at 60, and money in the bank.
I regret to say that many working people are not too sympathetic toward the unfortunate 25 per cent of the working poor and the group that is unable to work. However, in spite of all these things Canada's economy is buoyant. The gross national product has risen and so have wages. In spite of inflation, the high unemployment rate and increasing food prices, the middle-income group gets along moderately well. On the other hand, the poor find it increasingly difficult to raise their families with any semblance of decency and dignity.
There are other factors which must be acknowledged. Canada has a great many areas where regional disparities exist. These include the Maritimes, the north and the Prairies which lack industry and have seasonal work difficulties. Wealth has gravitated to Montreal, Toronto and the surrounding countryside. Industries are concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. Only recently have Alberta and British Columbia become wealthier provinces in company with the two I have mentioned. Sometimes unknown factors have caused all this. I believe it is a natural evolution. But, thank goodness, the picture is constantly changing. However, it is the duty of the federal government to work out schemes to try to equalize incomes and erase, so far as possible, economic inequalities.
There have been rumours of unemployment insurance abuses. However, these have been shown to be very small in number. Most people in the "have" bracket worry about increasing taxes. However, the government collects its revenue partly from personal income taxes. This makes up 40 per cent of the total revenue. The next largest source of revenue seems to come from corporate taxes. The remainder comes from sales, excise tax and Customs duties, and of course they bring in smaller amounts. In the working paper on social security, the minister promised a new approach which would take place over a period of time and would be within the existing levels of taxation.
The continued economic growth of Canada has greatly increased the revenue from personal income taxes, corporate and other taxes. The reduction of personal income tax would not do much to help the poverty group. It would put more money into the pockets of the wealthy. The poor pay practically no taxes. This is the big argument in favour of

October 15, 1973

making family allowance payments taxable even though the payments are increased.
Obviously, family allowance benefits will be reduced as family incomes increase. Following the April working paper on social security, federal-provincial conferences have been held. The most recent one was held in the first two weeks of this month. It is interesting to note that all the provinces agree on the broad principle that the minister presented. This means that many different governments agree, not only Liberal but NDP and Conservative as well. It was particularly acceptable to one or two provinces because the federal government has allowed for the differences in provinces and for planned flexibility. Ottawa has insisted mainly on the minimum allowance for every child being $12 and on the average payment for every child being $20. It is interesting to note that Ontario would pay the greatest amount to the fund, and Quebec would be next in line because of their large population. It is estimated that in 1972 the cost was over $600 million. The cost will be tripled in 1974, but because of increasing taxes there will be a reduction of $400,000 in the cost.
One should comment on the situation in Quebec. Many provinces criticized the family allowance program as a means of subsidizing Quebec's large families. This is completely untrue. The birthrate in all provinces has declined from 26.1 to 16.8 per 1,000, and Quebec's rate is now 14.8 per thousand; it has the second lowest birthrate in Canada. This, in turn, is due to increased government and private interest in family counselling and the growing determination of parents to limit families so that their children may enjoy a decent standard of living.
One might mention the fact that there is no correlation between the payment of family allowances and the birthrate. In the United States they pay no family allowances and their birthrate has declined, the same as that of Canada and the other 14 industrial nations who do pay family allowances. It is interesting to note that 40 to 50 countries, including those behind the iron curtain, pay some form of family allowance. Sometimes they are what we have in Canada, that is, universal payments, but in some countries they are oriented to an employment plan.
To summarize, all the provinces of Canada have social security programs which are correlated with the federal program. The recent federal-provincial conference has shown unanimous approval for the proposal of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). The new family allowance plan will improve the lot of over 350,000 families or, in other words, it will materially assist seven million young Canadians. It will serve to spread prosperity downwards to the poverty segment and will even up the differences in economically depressed areas of Canada. I find it quite evident that this new legislation is non-partisan, is enlightened and should continue to keep Canada's social security program near the forefront of the nations of the world.
In closing, I should like to say that the minister has shown that we can afford the plan. In addition, he emphasizes that we cannot refuse ordinary humane treatment to those families which cannot achieve a decent standard of living. The universality feature will help to remove any
Family Allowances
trace of stigma to a poor but proud family. Thank God we have many poor and proud families who are very worthwhile people in Canada. In my opinion, the minister should be congratulated on his vision, and I would ask all members of this House to support the legislation which he has so ably presented in Bill C-211.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have been given the opportunity to speak on Bill C-211 which finally, after three years of deliberation, has come about. Hopefully, by January 1, 1974, Canadians in our great nation will finally get the advantage of the social security program which they certainly deserve.
I want to relate my few words to the problem of poverty in our country, Mr. Speaker. If I can be forgiven for becoming a little insular in referring to the province of Newfoundland, I think it is high time the five million or so poverty-stricken Canadians who exist in this great nation-a good proportion of those unfortunately reside in my province-were given the advantage of the increases in family allowances on January 1 to an average of $20 a month.
The Chairman of our caucus committee on family allowances and social security, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), indicated in his adequate and most inimitable manner the feelings of our party regarding Bill C-211. While I did not have the pleasure of listening to all of his speech, I did hear him say it was the duty and the wish of our party and our leader to support this bill, and that without further delay it should be referred to committee so that we can deal in detail with many of the inequities which still exist and the bill can come back for further passage and we can assure the mothers of our country who are living in poverty-stricken conditions that they will be granted the increases they certainly deserve.
I wonder if I can prevail upon you to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, before we get into the adjournment matters which are now coming forward, I see the government House leader coming in and I wonder if he could tell us whether it is the intention of the government to proceed tomorrow with the matter that is presently before the House.


Mr. MacEachen:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with this item tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: In the event that this item is finished some time during tomorrow for the purpose of second reading, could the government House leader inform us what item of business will be called next?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that I would meet with the other House leaders tomorrow and review what item it might be appropriate to call in any interim period before we begin the capital punishment debate.
6890

Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, after five years, to get up twice in a row in this House is something to make all hon. members and the House leaders wonder. However, in the seven minutes which I am allotted I want to refer to a question that I directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) on June 29 last. I might say that I think the "late show" needs some form of revision.
Mr. Speaker, on June 29 I asked the minister for an indication of the progress with regard to the backlog of applications to the pension commission for disability pensions. This is an item which is of grave concern to many veterans who were given some hope in the fact that as a result of the Woods committee report they were able to reapply, even though they were turned down previously. This was of particular concern to those veterans of World War I who are now at an average age of over 80 years. The minister replied at that time, as is usual for him and his colleagues, that progress is being made. He indicated that production for the six months prior to my question had increased by some 75 per cent over the same period of the previous year, and that the average number of decisions written was 316 for each month in 1971, 464 for each month in 1972, and 762 in 1973. I am sure that will be part of his answer. This, to me, is an excellent record and I can say, as a result of subsequent answers from the chairman of the Pension Commission to my requests on follow-up, that I am convinced the Pension Commission and the commissioners are working beyond the call of duty to clean up the backlog.
May I refer to a progress report that I received at the end of September from the chairman of the Pension Commission. He said that in 1971, from the time of the amendments to the pension act, the commission received an average of 1,006 pension applications a month. In 1972 they received an average of 738 a month, and in 1973 they were receiving an average of 718 a month. Then there was a decline. Further, and more important as to the number of decisions, in 1971 the commission adjudicated an average of 316 claims a month. In 1972 production was increased on adjudication to 464 a month, and in 1973 it was increased to 827 a month, an average increase of 83 per cent. Further, Mr. Speaker, since the act was amended in March, 1971, some 25,000 applications have been received and some 16,000 adjudicated upon.
The backlog naturally grew after March 30, 1971, and at the end of December, 1972, it reached a peak of 9,591 cases. Although every effort was made, the backlog remains at 8,708 cases still to be dealt with. So here we are, Mr. Speaker, over two years later, and in spite of the dedica-

October 15, 1973
tion of the pension commissioners and even the additional part-time commissioners authorized by the previous minister, the backlog remains at a point that is beyond human endurance.
Further, even allowing for the fact that all members of the Pension Commission are working diligently and with dedication, at the end of this year the backlog will still remain at some 8,000 cases. I repeat, there will be 8,000 cases. About one-third of these claims are about one year old. Despite the fact that priority is given to World War I veterans, as well as their widows, and that the same priority basis is given to urgent medical or social needs, there will still be a backlog of 8,000 cases. Many of those veterans are in the over 80 age group.
What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is that in spite of the pledge of our governments over the years, the Department of Veterans Affairs has shown a complacency and apathy in giving other than lip service to the problem at hand. Surely, with all the resources of the present government, we can overcome this backlog so that we can fulfil our obligation to veterans who feel they should be entitled to disability pensions.
All members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs were of the opinion, after the report of the Woods commission, that applicants reapplying would be given more meaningful consideration as a result of the benefit of the doubt clause, because any consideration has to be in the mind of the adjudicators. The Woods recommendation was, of course, that a man was entitled to the presumption that the disability existed at enlistment unless it showed up at the time or within three months thereafter. The only argument permitted was where it was indicated that, on the advice of a physician not connected with CPC or DVA, the condition was of pre-enlistment origin.
To debate this issue properly would take more time than has been allocated to me. However, I ask the minister to make sure that some human consideration is given to this matter as a first priority, and that every means be explored to overcome the backlog of applications. The only way that this can be done, I suggest, is by decentralizing the activities of the Pension Commission, with more authority being given to district officials, so that many older veterans will not die in vain, with applications left unattended.
I realize that the minister is dedicated to this cause. Nevertheless, we face the problem in Canada that there is a backlog of some 8,000 cases. We must use all the resources at our command to alleviate the situation and get rid of that backlog so that we will fulfil our obligation.
I ask the minister to make a reply which is other than the one I suggested he probably would make.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that on June 29 I informed the members of this House that the Canadian Pension Commission has been increasing production steadily in the last while, and that in the period from January, 1973, to that date it increased production by 75 per cent over the same period a year before. Members will recall that I said the average number of decisions written was 316 each month in 1971, 464 each month in 1972, and in 1973 up to the end of June it was 762.
October 15, 1973

I am very pleased to report that the commission has been making excellent progress. In the three months of July, August and September the commission adjudicated upon an additional 2,871 claims. The preparation, training and planning within the commission is now bearing fruit and I am informed that in September almost 1,200 decisions were produced. When members realize that in September, 1972, the comparable number was 483, and in 1971 it was 252,1 am sure they will agree that the commission is to be congratulated on its efforts.
The commission is still faced with the problem that applications continue to be received in large numbers, and in the last few months there actually has been a slight increase. Members will recall that the backlog reached a high of about 9,600 cases in December of last year. By the end of September this year it had dropped to 8,700, and there was a decrease in every month this year but one. A continuing decrease is expected.
The problem of dealing with old cases still exists and the greater part of the commission's effort is directed toward reducing this number. In addition, the commission maintains its policy of granting priority to older veterans, that is, veterans of World War I. They realize that the average age of these veterans is close to 80 and they do their utmost to provide decisions on these claims as quickly as possible. Priority is also given to widows and certain individuals whose medical condition requires it. The commission is aware of the magnitude of the problem and in my opinion is doing an excellent job in meeting it.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-PROVISION OF EDUCATIONAL FILMS TO SCHOOL BOARDS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the minister is not here to answer questions on such an important subject. The subject of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation providing educational films to school boards and universities throughout Canada is of major importance and one on which I hope the government can throw some light tonight.
There are certain problems with the present Copyright Act. First, it affects the availability of teaching and learning materials, both print and nonprint. Second, it affects the interests of teachers as participants in the production of educational material. Teachers are prohibited by the present act from fully realizing the potential of the technology available to them and to their students. Third, an example of the copyright problem is that the CBC may hire an outside company to produce an educational film; however, the company may restrict showing rights to the CBC alone and retain the copyright to sell to other institutions. In such a case the CBC is unable to authorize any province or school board to reproduce it.
Another example would be the CBC producing an educational film itself and inserting still photographs belonging to another organization. Again, the permission is limited to use by the CBC. Further difficulties arise when the CBC uses a Hollywood produced film. In a case such as this, the screen actors guild and other organizations may have a claim for unauthorized use.
Adjournment Debate
The following are suggestions for amendments to the present act: (1) copying and duplicating should be allowed for, subject to suitable safeguards to protect the legitimate interests of the creator and publisher; (2) in the case of broadcast programs of an educational nature there should be recognition of the need to record them for playback within a limited period. In this situation the tape recording may be used to meet timetabling requirements without royalty payment; (3) transmission of copyright material through closed-circuit television systems should be subject to reasonable royalties and fees in terms of the specific target audience.
School boards and teachers have experienced distress in recent months because of current inadequacy in legislation and failure to reach agreement at the federal level. The Canadian Teachers' Federation has presented a number of briefs in this regard and I believe note should be made of some of the comments which have been made public. One is as follows:
Since there appears to be widespread expectation that the Copyright Act will be substantially revised in the near future, CTF believes that such a revision should not be long delayed and that it is of the utmost importance that all interested parties should have the opportunity to participate in the revision ... The brief complains that CBC program materials are being handed over to an American-dominated private company for distribution on a profitmaking basis.
Here is a quotation from a statement by Mr. Wendell Sparkes, the CTF president:
I am pleased to have a strong mandate to secure the full and free use in Canadian schools of educational programs developed with the support of public moneys . . . We will present our views regarding the difficulties being experienced with video taping of school telecasts for viewing at a more convenient time because of the present copyright laws as well as certain contractual arrangements at the CBC.
At this point I believe I should bring to light the objections raised by educationalists that though the CBC can obtain complete distribution rights for schools, its commercial outlet, Visual Education Centre, Inc., charges the full commercial rates. An example of this is the handling of the film on smoking entitled "One Way to Quit," a film which I maintain should be made available to students both in high school and in university. This is only one of many possible examples.
It seems unreasonable that productions financed entirely at the expense of the Canadian public should be sold to schools at full commercial rates. The CBC argues, in support of its position, that school boards do not receive free electricity, free telephone service or free mail service from the federal government. I do not believe this is a valid objection when it comes to providing films for use in our schools.
I am in receipt of a letter from the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) informing me that the majority of CBC programs are not accessible to school boards because nontelevision educational rights in most programs broadcast by the corporation either cannot be acquired or do not exist. The minister stated;
This leaves, of course, a number of other programs produced by or for the CBC which may have some value for further use in the classroom. Included among these are the school broadcasts pro-
26635-6!

October 15, 1973
Adjournment Debate
duced in co-operation with the Council of Ministers of Education and with provincial departments of education. CBC has been giving this program serious study over the past several months. This includes a detailed review of the cost and implications of releasing programs, where possible, for school and other uses, the suitability and adaptability of collective agreements with the talent unions, the possible impact on CBC administration and on the private non-theatrical film production and distribution industries.
The minister further stated:
The CBC is conscious of the desirability of making an early statement on the matter of providing some programs for use in schools.
In closing, let me say this. I feel many newscasts could be made more readily available. At present they can only be shown once. Series about certain countries cannot be reshown. Surely no royalties have to be paid to CBC announcers, or animals appearing in films.
The government and the CBC have had more than a reasonable amount of time in which to provide solutions to these problems. Answers are long overdue. School boards, school trustees, teachers, university administrators and members of parliament in all parties have patiently waited for some action to be taken by the minister. It is the hope of thousands of citizens across this nation that the hon. gentleman will provide a positive and firm commitment tonight with respect to providing educational and other films to our educational institutions.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell my hon. friend that I understand and share his concern for this important matter, but I would also like to say that our delay in giving an answer is not directly attributable to the Secretary of State Department. As stated in a letter sent to him by the Secretary of State Department which is responsible for the policy of the CTC, it is impossible to grant this request because of the copyrights involved.
I do not want to repeat what my hon. friend said by quoting from the letter which was addressed to him. I would simply like to read the following:

As you may be aware, the CBC, like most other broadcasters, actually owns outright very few of its productions. In nearly every case some other company or individual owns or controls elements in these programs produced by the CBC or acquired by them for broadcast purposes. The copyright to such programs is generally retained by the production company or creative artist-writer or film maker, for example.
However, this leaves a number of other programs produced by or for the CBC that may have some value for further use in the classroom. Included among these are the school broadcasts produced in co-operation with the Council of Ministers of Education and with provincial departments of education. The CBC has been giving this problem serious study over the past several months. This includes a detailed review of the cost and implications of releasing programs, where possible, for school and other use, the suitability and adaptability of collective agreements with talent unions, the possible impact on CBC administration and on the private nontheatrical film production and distribution industries.

[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would merely like to say to my hon. friend that I undertake to draw the minister's attention to the representations he made this evening and I hope we will get an answer which is not long in coming. I agree with him that an answer should be given without delay and I shall convey the message to the minister asking him to take quick and effective action.


PUBLIC SERVICE-APPEAL AGAINST DECISION CONDEMNING RED CIRCLING-REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PRACTICE AND APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on September 18 of this year, as reported at page 6672 of Hansard, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) whether the government was considering appealing the decision of Professor Abbott in which he condemned the practice of red circling in the well known Morency case. It was asked in the hope that the Government of Canada would see just what hardship this practice has brought about and that the government would at the same time put an end to it once and for all. My hopes were in vain, but in view of this government's record I ought not to have been surprised that it would do nothing in this particular case. In fact, a few days ago an announcement was made that the appeal was being launched. I regret the decision and that action and the attitude toward the public service which is evidenced by it.
I asked the question and I asked for this debate because I know of no practice in the public service that is more contrary to the principle of the merit system. There is no doubt that Professor Abbott's decision is a benchmark on the road to real justice for public servants, and as such it ought to have been allowed to stand. I will make no comment on whether or not the appeal launched by the government has any status in law because of delay, for that may well be a matter of law to be argued before the next tribunal and possibly before the courts. But that consideration ought not to detract from the importance of the decision in the working life of public servants.
Aside from the moral issue involved-and in my submission the balance in respect of the moral issue is on the side of the public servant-it is my contention that the process of red circling is unlawful, and this view is strengthened by the judgment of Professor Abbott. The Public Service Alliance of Canada has argued consistently, with great force, that an employee can be demoted only if it is shown that he is very incompetent or incapable. There is no authority in law for demotion on any other basis.
In this case the employer took the view that it had the unqualified right to classify and reclassify jobs or add or detract from duties, and when reclassification is to a lower level the employer also had the right to place the employee concerned in a holding scale of rates. The employer also took the position that when the salary of a CR-4 reached Mr. Morency's CR-5 salary, the employer had the right to demote Mr. Morency from CR-5 to CR-4 for no reason other than the fact that his position had been reclassified downward as a result of departmental reorganization.
October 15, 1973

There is no argument that the government or the employer has the right to reclassify. I do not think there is any argument that the government has the right to change the duties assigned to any person if it chooses to do so, at least as the law stands now. However, I want to quote from the brief filed by the PSAC in respect of the position taken by the government as follows:
What we do not agree with is that an employee can be deprived of any further salary increases because the employer has exercised its right to downgrade the level of the position which he encumbers. If the employer was right, if it can forestall any salary increase simply by reducing the level of positions in the public service, then collective bargaining would be a nullity. If we obtained through arbitration a salary increase for the CR group which was higher than that which the employer wished to pay, all the employer would have to do is reclassify all CR positions downward by one grade and then, rather than gaining any increases in salary, all employees in the group would be red circled and eventually demoted. Just to state that proposition is sufficient. It is obviously ridiculous.
To that I should like to add that it is patently unjust. Then the brief went on to deal with another matter, and it said this:
Under section 10 of the Employment Act, the law requires that all "appointments to or from within the public service shall be based on selection according to merit, as determined by the commission . .."
Mr. Speaker, the actions of the government from the beginning of the Morency case flew in the face of the merit principle. The Abbott judgment states that the principle of justice cannot be ignored. The government ought to reconsider its position, admit it has been wrong and avoid further delay through this costly appeal procedure in the face of a good judgment, the cost of the delay and the many public servants affected by the judgment.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the hon. member's rhetoric. I almost said "oratory," but "rhetoric" is a much better term. The hon. gentleman said that red circling is the equivalent of demotion, and that the Public Service Act contemplates a formal procedure for demotion which can be carried out only on the grounds of incompetence or other specific reasons. I would point out that his understanding of the process known as red circling must be imperfect if he attributes any method of demotion to red circling. In fact he has said-and I quote from the
Adjournment Debate
brief of his informant-that the government has and must continue to have the right to reassign duties and reclassify jobs, not people, in the public service. This it does.
In the process of reorganization, or reclassification and of the reassignment of duties there will be occasions in which the nature of the duties of a man or woman has changed, perhaps in the sense of becoming less onerous and less responsible, in which case that particular job will carry a lower classification on review than it did previously when the duties were different. When this happens, rather than impose a financial penalty on the public servant, provision is made that he will continue at his existing salary for his old classification or his or her old grade and will continue to get the normal annual increases provided for that salary range. However, he or she will not get the negotiated changes for the old classification which is no longer appropriate, but there will be no loss or diminution of salary, and in this sense no demotion. The job has been changed and perhaps it has been downgraded.
The hon. gentleman acknowledged the right of the government to redistribute duties. The civil servant has not been demoted; he continues to enjoy the same salary, and I am glad to say that the concern of the department and of the Public Service Commission has been to endeavour assiduously to find elsewhere appropriate work carrying the man's original classification. It is only in cases where it is not possible to effect a transfer to the original classification, or in some cases where the individual does not wish to move, that the red circling process comes into operation.
Given the right of the government in the execution of its duties to the taxpayers to reorganize departments, to reclassify positions, I consider this, rather than being unjust to be a very fair and very just system to ensure that those who are overtaken by changes in operational functions do not suffer financial penalty.
I should point out in closing that the converse of red circling is green circling. No one complains that when the nature of a job has been changed and its classification is discovered to be too low, there is no hesitancy or unwillingness on the part of either the government or the employee to raise the remuneration for that position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to be adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Tuesday, October 16, 1973