1973-05-09

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of New Brunswick 1973.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 4, 1973-Mr. Howard-The following proposed motion:- That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, if I could get unanimous consent to move this motion with the understanding that there would be no debate, I think it would be lovely for parliament to express itself on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.


FINANCE
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, under the appropriate Standing Order of the House I wish to table, in English and French, the federal
position taken at the conference yesterday relating to the control of expenses of health services and post-secondary education.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in connection with the documents tabled earlier by the Minister of Finance. I wonder if I could ask the House at this time if it would be willing to have these documents printed as an appendix to today's Hansard. I assume they are brief, having in mind the nature of the proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of documents referred to above, see Appendix A]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of. Justice on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1.	1968-69,
$5,150.00; 1969-70, $5,200.00; 1970-71, $5,440.00; 1971-72, $15,429.60.
2.	McConnell, Stevenson & Kellogg Ltd., 2015 Peel Street, Montreal, Quebec, $5,500, assisting the Department of Justice and Information Canada in publicity and information matters with respect to the National Conference on the Law during 1971-72. Balance not contracted. Design, printing and distribution done by Federal Government departments.
3.	No contracts were let to firms outside the government. Internal printing of press releases will be approximately $3,846 and a booklet "Justice in the North" will cost about $1,785 for a total of $5,631.
3552

May 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions MACHINERY REMISSION PROGRAM


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of corporations which received subsidies under the Machinery Remission Program (MACH) in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts of money remitted in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above Program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the Program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. There are no subsidies granted under the Machinery Program (MACH) as this is a tariff remission program. The Machinery and Equipment Advisory Board receives approximately 18,000 applications for remission of duty annually and it would not be practical to list individually all the approved applications. However, each year the Public Accounts includes a listing of the numbers of the Orders-in-Council which approved remissions under the program, together with the total amount actually remitted under each remission order. *
2.	The Machinery Program came into effect on January 1, 1968, along with other changes in Canadian tariffs arising from the Kennedy Round. Under the program the duty otherwise payable on machines, accessories, attachments, control equipment, tools and components imported under Tariff Item 42700-1, may be remitted if such goods are not available from production in Canada. In the budget of June 18, 1971, the provisions of the Machinery Program were extended to importations under Tariff Item 41100-1 covering machinery for use in sawmills and logging. The objective of the program is to increase efficiency throughout Canadian industry by enabling machinery users to acquire advanced equipment at the lowest possible cost, while at the same time affording Canadian machinery producers tariff protection on what they manufacture. In addition, Canadian machinery producers are protected by a single statutory rate of duty which applies immediately when they are in a position to supply.
3.	Each year, a report of the results of the Machinery Program is published and distributed to manufacturers and users of machinery. The report covers imports of machinery not available from Canadian production, on which duty has been remitted, and which could represent new manufacturing opportunities. It provides a breakdown of the types of machinery being imported, their value and country of origin. The latest report covers imports of machinery during the year 1971.


Mr. Lawrence: What were the names and addresses of ail lawyers and law firms in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for the Department of Justice during 1972 and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Otto Emil Lang: The following lawyers and law firms in the county of Durham, Ontario, acted as agents of the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of client departments in 1972: Bonneville, Fitzgib-bon & Good, 11 Mill St. N., Port Hope, $1,368.61; Fitzgib-

bon, C.D., 11 Mill St. N., Port Hope, $3,520.00; Honey, Brooks & Harrison, 114, Walton St., Port Hope, $1,597.95; Lovekin, E. R., Box 9, Commercial Bldg., Newcastle, $570.00.


Mr. Lawrence: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for the Department of Justice during 1971, and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Otto Emil Lang: The following lawyers and law firms in the county of Durham, Ontario acted as agents of the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of client departments in 1971: Bonneville, Fitzgib-bon & Good, 11 Mill St. N., Port Hope, $1,262.30; Fitzgibbon, C.D., 11 Mill St. N., Port Hope, $3,636.35; Honey, Brooks & Harrison 114 Walton St., Port Hope, $1,866.90; Lovekin, E.R., Box 9, Commercial Bldg., Newcastle, $1,172.95.


Mr. Lawrence: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for the Department of Justice during 1972, and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Otto Emil Lang: 
Mr. Lawrence: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for the Department of Justice during 1971, and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Otto Emil Lang: 
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many persons in Canada on visitors' permits were ordered to return to their country of origin as of January 1, 1973?
2.	How many cases are now waiting to be heard by the Immigration Appeal Board?
3.	What is the current waiting period for the hearing of an appeal from deportation or other immigration ruling?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. While no precise figures are available, it is estimated that during the calendar year 1972, 4,000 persons in Canada on a temporary basis were ordered deported.
2.	As of December 31, 1972, 11,875.
3.	For appeals being heard now the waiting period is from two weeks to three years. For appeals being filed now the waiting period would be considerably longer.


Mr. Howie: Is a study of the operation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion now in progress and, if so (a) what is the purpose of this study (b) is it being conducted by any persons outside the Department (c) how much money was paid to outside personnel in this connection, and to whom was it paid?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: There is no study of the "operation" of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in progress. As announced some time ago, there is in progress a review of policies and programs and steps are being taken to further decentralize the organization of the department.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Has Thomas Lindsay Ltd. applied for authority to open a 3B Truck Sufferance Warehouse in Richmond, British Columbia and, if so, was this request refused and on what grounds?
2.	Is United Truck Terminals the only 3B Truck Sufferance Warehouse in the Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, Delta area?
3.	Who are the owners of United Truck Terminals?
4.	Has United Truck Terminals applied for permission to raise their storage rates and (a) if so, by how much (b) if not, do they need such authority to raise their rates (c) does the government approve such control?
5.	What is the National Harbours Board charge for space as Rail Sufferance?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am Informed by the Department of National Revenue and the Ministry of Transport as follows: 1. Yes. Application was refused on the basis of existing department policy of one Highway Sufferance Warehouse per Customs Port but applicant was advised that the question of a second Highway Sufferance Warehouse in the Vancouver area is under review.
2.	Yes.
3.	Records of the Department of National Revenue do not contain this information.
Order Paper Questions
4.	No. (a) N/A; (b) No; (c) No. There is no authority in any existing law for the Government to approve changes in rates charged by operators of Sufferance Warehouses.
5.	The National Harbours Board is not involved in Rail Sufferance.


Mr. Kempling: 1.	What non-profit corporations, incorporated under Division III of Quebec Corporations Act, have received LIP grants and what is the size of the grants involved?
2.	What are the dates of their incorporation under the above Act?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This information is not available in the records of the Local Initiatives Program.


Mr. Towers: To the knowledge of the government, how many funeral parlours in Canada are controlled by (a) United States-based firms (b) firms based in countries other than the United States?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Information in the office of the Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act, indicates that there are 40 funeral parlours in Canada controlled by two United States-based firms, one with 14 and the other with 26 funeral parlours in Canada. There is no record of any other foreign-controlled funeral parlours in Canada. This information, however, is not regarded as exhaustive.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	How much money is available to Canadian museums under the terms of the National Museums Policy announced on March 28, 1972?
2.	How many Manitoba museums have made application to participate in the program?
3.	How much money was involved in the submissions made by Manitoba museums?
4.	How many applications have been approved?
5.	What is the total amount of money now approved for disbursement to Manitoba museums under the terms of the policy?
6.	(a) In the case of submissions approved, what has been the average amount of time between the receipt of the submission and its approval (b) what has been the average amount of time between the approval of the submission and the receipt of the money requested by the applicants?
7.	What is the average amount of time that the submissions not yet disposed of have been under consideration?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	$8,100,000 in 1972-73.
2.	Thirty-two.
3.	$1,229,047.02.
4.	Thirteen.

May 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions
5.	$629,360.
6.	(a) Two to four months; (b) One to two weeks.
7.	Two months.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2308?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 17, 1972.
2.	Approved on December 12, 1972.
3.	This project was one that best combined the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$44,109.
5.	Three hundred and seventy-seven man-weeks of employment.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive and application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2084?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 15, 1972.
2.	Approved on December 13, 1972.
3.	This project was one that best combined the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$33,384.
5.	Three hundred and twelve man-weeks of employment.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6439?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 16, 1973.
2.	Approved on February 13, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$9,857.
5.	Eighty-six man-weeks.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3270?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 29, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 12, 1973.
3.	The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3411?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?

3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 27, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 19, 1973.
3.	The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3728?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 5, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 14, 1973.
3.	The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3741?
2.	On what date was the application approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?
Order Paper Questions


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 24, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 16, 1973.
3.	The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3764?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?
[ Translation]


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 6, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 10, 1973.
3.	The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


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


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. One thousand four hundred and thirty-four full-time employees.
2.	$15,000 to $15,999, 47; $16,000 to $16,999, 29; $17,000 to $17,999, 19; $18,000 to $18,999, 6; $19,000 to $19,999, 14; $20,000 to $20,999, 5; $21,000 to $21,999, 10; $22,000 to $22,999, 7; $23,000 to $23,999, 3; $24,000 to $24,999, nil; $25,000 to

May 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions
$25,999, 1; $26,000 to $26,999, nil; $27,000 to $27,999, nil; *$28,000 to $28,999, 1.
3.	Two thousand three hundred and five full-time employees.
4.	$18,000 to $18,999, 56; $19,000 to $19,999, 30; $20,000 to $20,999, 28; $21,000 to $21,999, 13; $22,000 to $22,999, 22; $23,000 to $23,999, 14; $24,000 to $24,999, 10; $25,000 to $25,999, 7; $26,000 to $26,999, 1; $27,000 to $27,999, 1; *$28,000 to $35,000, 7.
Not separated to $1,000 intervals in order to protect privacy of salary information in accordance with T.B. Circular 1969-206.	'
BILLS DRAWN UP IN 28th PARLIAMENT


Mr. Matte: 1.	How many bills were initially conceived and drawn up in French in the last Parliament (28th)?
2.	How many bills were introduced by the government and how many were translated from English to French?


Otto Emil Lang: 1 and 2. The Department of Justice has no information regarding the language in which the 252 bills that were introduced by the government in the twenty-eighth Parliament were initially conceived. However, the practice has been for the original draft of a bill to be prepared in the first instance in English, after which a French version of the draft would be prepared for consideration by the legal officers in the French-speaking unit of the Legislation Section. Both drafts would then be considered from the point of view of their implications in relation to the civil law, and from the point of view of whether each version corresponded with the other version accurately. In numerous cases following the consideration of a draft by members of the French-speaking unit of the Legislation Section and following consultation with the English-speaking members, changes were made in the draft, either in the French or the English version, or in both versions. After these changes were made, a final draft bill in fully bilingual form was prepared for review by the Cabinet.


Mr. Hueglin: 1.	How many cases came before the courts in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 which involved the use of firearms in crimes other than murder?
2.	Of the total number of charges laid, how many of those charged were found guilty of the crimes in question and what was the average sentence for use of firearms in commission of a crime other than murder during the same years?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Statistics Canada does not collect data on the use of firearms in the commission of other criminal offences, by type of offence unless the use of the firearm was the most serious offence. When several offences are committed by a person, police departments only report the most serious offence committed in each incident. For example, if a person is arrested for breaking and entering

and is carrying an offensive weapon, only the breaking and entering would be reported under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Also, in reporting the number of persons indicted and convicted of offences relating to offensive weapons and sentences for such, only the most serious offence committed by the person is recorded.


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


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. One thousand and seven.
2.	$15,000 to $15,999, 41; $16,000 to $16,999, 21; $17,000 to $17,999, 30; $18,000 to $18,999, 13; $19,000 to $19,999, 4; $20,000 to $20,999, 4; $21,000 to $21,999, 2; $22,000 to $22,999, 6; $23,000 to $23,999, 2; $24,000 to $24,999, 1; $25,000 to $25,999, 2; $26,000 to $26,999, 1; $27,000 to $27,999, 2; *$28,000 to $32,000, 1.
3.	One thousand eight hundred and eighty-four.
4.	$18,000 to $18,999, 56; $19,000 to $19,999, 27; $20,000 to $20,999, 21; $21,000 to $21,999, 34; $22,000 to $22,999, 6; $23,000 to $23,999, 5; $24,000 to $24,999, 10; $25,000 to $25,999, 3; $26,000 to $26,999, 6; $27,000 to $27,999, 2; *$28,000 to 35,000, 5.
Not separated to $1,000 intervals in order to protect privacy of salary information in accordance with T.B. Circular 1969-206.	'


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Did Canada have a surplus or a deficit during (a) the first quarter of 1971 (b) the second quarter of 1971 (c) the third quarter of 1971 (d) the fourth quarter of 1971 (e) the first quarter of 1972 (f) the second quarter of 1972 (g) the third quarter of 1972 and, if so, what was the amount for each period?
[ Transla tion]


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that:
The following table shows Canada's current account balances and over-all balances for the periods requested.
Current Account	Over-all
Balance11'	Balance12'
(millions of dollars)
1971		
1st quarter	+ 161	+ 582nd quarter	+ 107	+ 73rd quarter	+ 297	+ 1424th quarter	-168	+ 580
May 9, 1973


Mr. Laprise: For each year since its establishment, has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion received requests for grants from the constituency of Abitibi and, if so (a) from whom (b) which ones were accepted and in what amounts?
[ Translation]


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes. (a) The Department of Regional Economic Expansion, in considering grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act, undertakes to keep all applications confidential until such time as an offer of assistance has been made and accepted by the applicant at which time it is formally announced by the Department.
(b)	Details of Accepted Offers in Abitibi Constituency, Quebec
August 7, 1969 to February 28, 1973 Department of Regional Economic Expansion
Applicant's Name	Location of Facility	Year of Acceptance	Total OfferFederation Regionale des Chantiers Cooperatifs de l'Ouest Quebecois	Taschereau	1972	$ 966,000Howard-Bienvenu Inc.	La Sarre	1972	584,160J. H. Normick Inc.	La Sarre	1972	190,100J. H. Normick Ltee	La Sarre	1970	595,750J. R. Lumber Co. Ltd.	Amos	1972	94,000M & M Auto Parts Inc.	Amos	1971	104,070Roberge & Fils Inc.	La Sarre	1971	14,300Scierie Gallichan Inc.	Launay	1971	12,715Scierie Gallichan Inc.	Launay	1972	25,040[English] CANADIAN ARSENALS LTD -MONEYS CONTRACTED TO EACH OF FIVE REGIONS	contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by Canadian Arsenals Limited? 2. What was this in per capita terms for each region?	Question No. 1,539-Mr. McKenzie: 1. In the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1971-72, how much	money was	Hon. Jean-Services):	-Pierre Goyej	r (Minister of Supply andRegions	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72$	$	$	$1. Atlantic Provinces	-	-	-	-Quebec	1,459,326	1,849,224	931,903	490,741Ontario	1,299,089	1,358,515	1,307,592	796,719Prairie Provinces	-	-	-	-British Columbia	-	-	-	5582. Atlantic Provinces	-	-	-	-Quebec	243.87	309.03	154.98	81.41Ontario	174.28	182.25	171.22	103.43Prairie Provinces	-	-	-	-British Columbia	-	-	-	0.26


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,550-Mr. Bawden:		2. For each of the above, what was the percentage relationship between the grant obtained and the orchestra's total operating budget?		
1. What grants have been allocated to symphony orchestras across Canada for the year 1972-73?
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.	What criteria are used by the Canada Council in the allocation of grants to symphony orchestras?
James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. The following grants have been allocated to symphony orchestras by the Canada Council for the year 1972-1973: Toronto Symphony Orchestra, $435,600; Montreal Symphony Orchestra, $440,000; N.A.C. Orchestra, $120,000; Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, $286,500; Calgary Philharmonic Society, $70,800; Edmonton Symphony Society, $157,500; Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra, $212,500; Hamilton Philharmonic Society, $80,000; Quebec Symphony Orchestra, $182,000; Atlantic Symphony Orchestra, $212,500; Victoria Symphony Society, $32,000; Regina Symphony, 18,000; Saskatoon Symphony Society, $12,000; National Youth Orchestra, $42,000.
2.	For each of the above, the percentage relationship between the grant obtained and the orchestra's total operating budget was: Toronto Symphony Orchestra, 19.5; Montreal Symphony Orchestra, 18.9; N.A.C. Orchestra, 11.7; Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, 25.5; Calgary Philharmonic Society, 13.4; Edmonton Symphony Society, 27.7; Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra, 26.3; Hamilton Philharmonic Society, 16.0; Quebec Symphony Orchestra, 25.3; Atlantic Symphony Orchestra, 35.0; Victoria Symphony Society, 12.1; Regina Symphony, 8.1; Saskatoon Symphony Society, 17.2; National Youth Orchestra, 22.1.
3.	Canada Council grants to symphony orchestras are allocated on the basis of professional quality; the audience served by the orchestra and its financial need are also taken into account.


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


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Five thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight.
Salary	No. of Employees
$ 15,000	7
16,000	11
17,000	1
18,000	5
19,000	3
20,000	4
21,000	8
22,000	0
23,000	3
24,000	1
25,000	1
28,000-35,000	1
(SX-3)	
3.	Six thousand and five. *
Salary	No. of Employees
$	
18,000	12
19,000	21
20,000	14
21,000	7
22,000	10
23,000	8
24,000	5
25,000	4
26,000	3
27,000	2
28,000	0
*25,000-31,000	
(SX2)	1
*28,000-35,000	
(SX3)	3
*34,000-40,000	
(DM1)	1
* Not separated to $1,000 intervals in order to protect privacy of salary information in accordance with T.B. Circular 1969-206.


Mr. Godin: Did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration sign any contracts during the 1972-73 fiscal year with employers or companies pursuant to Section 6 of the Adult Occupational Training Act and, if so (a) how many were signed with employers in Quebec (b) what were the names and addresses of employers or companies concerned (c) what was the duration of each contract (d) what was the total number of jobs created by this program (i) in Quebec (ii) in Canada?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes. (a) In the
1972-73 fiscal year 5,590 Training on-the-Job contracts and 723 Training-in-Industry contracts were signed with employers in Quebec, (b) Providing this voluminous information at this level of detail would require an inordinate cost, (c) See (b). (d) The Training-in-Industry Program is not a job creation program per se. Through Training on-the-Job contracts, in the fiscal year 1972/73: (i) 22,276 jobs were created in Quebec (ii) 61,284 jobs were created in Canada.

May 9, 1973

[English}


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Has CBC negotiated an extension of its contract with the Visual Education Centre and (a) if so, what are the terms of such contract (b) if not, is it the intention of CBC to negotiate further contracts with the Visual Education Centre?
2.	What amounts are paid by the Visual Education Centre to CBC for the exclusive distribution rights of material which it enjoys?
3.	Does the CBC contract with Visual Education Centre include rights to material produced by provincially-generated educational broadcasts and, if so, what contra-arrangement, if any, is made with the provincial education department concerned?
4.	Does CBC negotiate special contracts with (a) actors (b) authors (c) production units for educational type material and, if so, what is the nature of such contracts?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. An extension to CBC's contract with the Visual Education Centre has not been negotiated, (a) The contract runs until April 30, 1974, but there is provision for extension on the agreement of both parties, (b) The decision to extend the term of the Visual Education Centre contract has not yet been considered as between CBC and VEC.
2.	CBC has not been required in the past to reveal the terms of contracts where it is in competition with others.
3.	The CBC contract with VEC covers programs exclusively owned by CBC. Where another rights holder, such as a provincial department of eduction, has a shared right on the program it would not be released through the Visual Education Centre contract.
4.	(a) and (b): In many cases CBC's collective agreements cover the extension of rights to include educational use. In some cases individual negotiation with actors and authors is necessary, (c) In some cases CBC can obtain from production units or companies the right to release a production for school use. In some other cases the production company prefers to retain the right in order to exploit it in the schools itself, and in some cases education rights are not available.


Mr. Kempling: What changes have been made to, or contemplated for, the detailed basis of calculating (a) the Consumer Price Index (b) the Industry Selling Price Index (c) the General Wholesale Price Index specifying precisely detailed changes in all procedures, indexes used as a basis and pricing techniques involved in the calculation of each of the indexes specified for each of the months (i) December, 1972 (ii) January, 1973 (iii) February, 1973 (iv) March, 1973?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: No changes have been made to, or are contemplated for, the basis of calculating the published (a) Consumer Price Index, (b) Industry Selling Price Index, (c) General Wholesale Price Index in any of the months
Order Paper Questions
(i) December, 1972, (ii) January, 1973, (iii) February, 1973, (iv) March, 1973. However, Statistics Canada will introduce the next periodic revision of the Consumer Price Index, probably in June, 1973. The base period will remain 1961 = 100, but the expenditure basket will be changed to 1967, replacing the 1957 weights used up to now. The index calculated on the present basis remains the official index for the period up to the introduction of the index derived with the new methodology. As far as the Industry Selling Price Index is concerned, Statistics Canada plans to publish sometime in 1975 a new series of industry price indexes from 1971 forward, calculated on a 1971 time and weight base, and aggregated within the framework of the 1970 standard industrial classification. Regarding possible changes contemplated for the computation of the General Wholesale Price Index, a start has been made in the development of a new system of commodity indexes that will be designed to measure price change of all commodities traded below the retail level. This set of series will probably be developed from 1961 forward, but the timing, completion and publication will depend on the resources available for this work. Whenever there is a revision in the methodology of computing price indexes, it has been, and it remains, the policy of Statistics Canada to (a) document, in published form, all details explaining such a revision in methodology; (b) and to publish comparisons of the revised and the unrevised series for a period of overlap, in order to show what the changes in a series would have been using either the unrevised or the revised methodology. The period of overlap refers to past months or years, depending on the availability of price data defined in terms of the revised methodology but relating to past periods.


Mr. Kempling: Has Statistics Canada made public details of all changes made or anticipated in the basis of calculating (a) the Consumer Price Index (b) the Industry Selling Price Index (c) the General Wholesale Price Index made in the twelve month period prior to and including March, 1973?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: No changes have been made, nor are anticipated, in the basis of calculating the published (a) Consumer Price Index; (b) Industry Selling Price Index; (c) General Wholesale Price Index; in the twelve-month period prior to and including March, 1973. However, see also reply to question 1,708.


Mr. Kempling: Since 1968, has it been, and will it continue to be, the policy of Statistics Canada to publish all details of changes in the basis of calculating (a) the Consumer Price Index (b) the Industry Selling Price Index (c) the General Wholesale Price Index?

May 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Since 1968, it has been and will continue to be, the policy of Statistics Canada to publish all details of changes in the basis of calculating the published (a) Consumer Price Index, (b) Industry Selling Price Index; (c) General Wholesale Price Index.


Mr. Kempling: Where there have been any changes in the detailed procedures or basis of calculating (a) the Consumer Price Index (b) the Industry Selling Price Index (c) the General Wholesale Price Index, what would the index figures have been, calculated on the basis of the procedures used in December, 1972, for each of the months (i) December, 1972 (ii) January, 1973 (iii) February, 1973?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: There were no changes in the procedures or the basis of calculating the indexes in question.


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


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. There were 3,110 full-time employees as of January 31, 1970 in Statistics Canada.
2. Two hundred and fifty-six of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually and distributed according to $1,000 intervals, there were:
41	earning between $15,000 and $16,000			
54	tt	it	16,000 and	17,00015	((	ti	17,000 and	18,00028	it	it	18,000 and	19,00046	it	it	19,000 and	20,00029	ti	ii	20,000 and	21,00013	tl	ti	21,000 and	22,00011	ti	ti	22,000 and	23,00017	ti	tt	23,000 and	24,000Nil	ti	ti	24,000 and	25,0002	ti	ti	25,000 and	26,000
3. There were 3,771 full-time employees as of January 31, 1973 in Statistics Canada.

4.	Three hundred and eight of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, and distributed according to $1,000 intervals, there were:
39 earning between $18,000 and $19,000
45 "	it	19,000	and	20,00058 "	tt	20,000	and	21,00021 "	tt	21,000	and	22,00013 "	tt	22,000	and	23,00060 "	ii	23,000	and	24,00012 "	ti	24,000	and	25,00024 "	it	25,000	and	26,00010 "	it	26,000	and	27,00020 "	tt	27,000	and	28,0005 "	It	28,000 and (SX-3) *	35,0001 "	tt	34,000 and (DM-1) *	40,000
* Not separated to $1,000 intervals in order to protect privacy of salary information in accordance with T.B. Circular 1969-206.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Is the Canadian Wheat Board financed through votes in the estimates?
2.	Do grain producers make any contribution to its financing?
3.	What is the annual budget of the Board for the current fiscal year?
[ Transla tion]


Otto Emil Lang: 1. No. The
Canadian Wheat Board Act does provide that the government will pay deficits in the board's pool accounts for wheat, oats and barley when the returns from the market, less marketing costs, are insufficient to cover the initial payments established by the government. Since the board's inception in 1935 there have been three deficits in the barley pool account, two deficits in the oats account and one deficit in the wheat account. The government also pays storage charges under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act on Canadian Wheat Board Stocks of wheat in commercial storage in excess of 178 million bushels.
2.	Yes, except as mentioned above, producers pay all costs including salaries of the commissioners and other employees.
3.	The expenses and revenues of the board vary with market demand and the volume of sales by the board which in turn may fluctuate significantly over short period of time. The board does not prepare annual fiscal year budgets.
May 9, 1973


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	(a) How many Canada Council grants have been awarded since the inception of the Canada Council (b) who were the recipients (c) how much was each grant?
2.	Does the government intend to change the terms of reference for awarding Canada Council grants and, if so, in what respect?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1 (a), (b) and (c). I am informed by the Canada Council that this information is given in the Canada Council's annual reports, the first of which was published in 1958.
2. No.


Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many years has National Protective Service had the contract for guard service at the National Gallery of Canada?
2.	What was the amount of the contract for each year (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973?
3.	What is the minimum number of employees specified in the contract, who must be assigned directly for surveillance of works of art (a) during open hours of the Gallery (b) during closed hours?
4.	What is the maximum number of hours specified in the contract that an employee can work each week?
5.	For each Thursday since January 1, 1973, how many employees directly assigned to surveillance of works of art worked from 6 to 10 p.m.?
6.	What is the penalty for non-compliance with the terms of the contract?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	Thirteen years.
2.	Approximately 135,000 guard man hours per year; (a) 1971 at $2.05; (b) 1972 at $2.27 until June at $2.48; (c) 1973 at $2.48.
3 (a) and (b). This information must be considered confidential for security reasons.
4.	Nil.
5.	This information must be considered confidential for security reasons.
6.	The Contractor's Performance Bond may be forfeited and the contract may be cancelled.


Mr. Lewis: What were the total amounts and detailed amounts (e.g. contributions to political parties; see p. 33 of Statistics Canada publication "Corporation Taxation Statistics, 1970") reported by corporations for 1965 as "non-allowable current expenses", distributed by nine industry groups and cross-classified by control (foreign, Canadian)?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that the information is not available for the year requested.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lewis: What were the total amounts and detailed amounts (e.g. contributions to political parties; see p. 33 of Statistics Canada publication "Corporation Taxation Statistics, 1970") reported by corporations for 1966 as "non-allowable current expenses", distributed by nine industry groups and cross-classified by control (foreign, Canadian)?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that the information is not available for the year requested.


Mr. Lewis: What were the total amounts and detailed amounts (e.g. contributions to political parties; see p. 33 of Statistics Canada publication "Corporation Taxation Statistics, 1970") reported by corporations for 1967 as "non-allowable current expenses", distributed by nine industry groups and cross-classified by control (foreign, Canadian)?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that the information is not available for the year requested.


Mr. Lewis: What were the total amounts and detailed amounts (e.g. contributions to political parties; see p. 33 of Statistics Canada publication "Corporation Taxation Statistics, 1970") reported by corporations for 1971 as "non-allowable current expenses", distributed by nine industry groups and cross-classified by control (foreign, Canadian)?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that the information requested is not yet available for 1971.


Mr. Neale (Vancouver East): 1.	What investigations have been made of possible violations of the Alien Labour Act as a result of employment of aliens on the car ferry Travetal?
2.	What were the findings of these investigations?
3.	What action has been taken as a result of these findings?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has not carried out any investigations of possible violations of the Alien Labour Act as a result of employment of aliens on the car ferry Travetal.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.

May 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions
GRANTS UNDER SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAM	LIP PROJECTS-MUNICIPALITY OF ST. THURIBE


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many grants, at what total value, have been awarded under the Social Action Program to foster the development of Canada's French and English speaking minorities and to promote good relations between Canada's two official language groups?
2.	How many, at what total value, have been awarded (a) to French speaking groups (b) to English speaking groups (c) in each of the ten provinces and each of the two territories?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1 Since the Social Action Branch was established in the fall of 1969, 708 grants totalling $7,089,504 have been awarded.
2 (a). 576 grants totalling $6,322,348; (b) 132 grants
totalling $767,156.	Number	
(c) Province	of grants	Amount $Newfoundland	7	15,234Prince Edward Island	16	102,060Nova Scotia	27	339,358New Brunswick	76	727,615Quebec	67	494,006Ontario	191	1,975,106Manitoba	53	785,420Saskatchewan	60	423,545Alberta	61	462,051British Columbia	19	236,771National (projects including several provinces)	131	1,528,338N.W.T.	Nil	NilYukon	Nil	NilTotal	708	7,089,504


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With the reference to the answer to question No. 987, what are the names of the fee-charging employment agencies with whom pilot projects are being conducted in Toronto and Montreal?
2.	What are the names of the employment agencies in Vancouver, British Columbia and Halifax, Nova Scotia with whom pilot projects will be conducted?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Toronto: Star Personnel Limited, 11 Adelaide St. W.; Personnel World Limited, 30 Bloor St. W.; Harold Miller Business Consultants, 37 Touraine St.; J. M. Personnel Limited, 2390 Eglington Ave. E., Scarborough. Montreal: Aline Hooper Associates Inc., West Island Mall Shopping Centre; DOT Personnel Services, 550 Sherbrooke St. W.; Marie Selick Associates Ltd., 1155 Dorchester St., W.; The 500 Selection Services Canada Limited, 615 Dorchester St., W.
2. These have not yet been determined.


Mr. Matte: Have the Municipality of St. Thuribe or other organizations of that Municipality submitted projects under LIP and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) were they accepted and if they were rejected, for what reasons?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, one. (a) Plaisirs d'hiver; (b) The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.


Mr. Korchinski: With reference to the answer to Question No. 858, on what date does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development expect to receive the results of the survey as to the housing requirements on Indian Reservations?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The
following completion dates are expected for each region. Maritimes, May 15, 1973; Quebec, May 1, 1973; Ontario, May 15, 1973; Manitoba, May 1, 1973; Saskatchewan, May 1, 1973; Alberta, May 1, 1973; Yukon, May 1, 1973; British Columbia, May 1, 1973. Final national figures are not expected until approximately the end of June.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the general policy of the government with respect to applications made by provincial authorities or incorporated municipalities for land to be disposed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation in terms of right of refusal?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: The general policy of the government with respect to applications for land to be disposed of by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is to provide the first priority to federal government departments or agencies and then accord the right of first refusal to provincial authorities and to municipalities in that order. This right is extended on the understanding that fair market value will be paid and that the land sold will be for public use.


Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many work permits have been issued to Canadian employers of aircraft pilots to date in 1973 by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and to whom?
2.	Were work permits issued to (a) Skocdopole Brothers Aviation Limited of Olds, Alberta (b) Walker Flying Services of Edmonton, Alberta in 1973 so that each firm could rehire non-residents that they employed in 1972?
3.	If work permits were issued to the above-named Companies in 1973, were all the registered unemployed Canadian pilots with the appropriate experience and qualifications contacted by Man-
May 9, 1973

power and made aware that positions existed prior to the issuance [ English) of these work permits?
Order Paper Questions LIP GRANTS


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Employment visas or "work permits" are issued to non-immigrants wishing to accept employment in Canada and not to Canadian employers. Twenty-three employment visas were issued to aircraft pilots between January 1 and March 31, 1973 for employment with the following companies, TransQuebec Helicopters Limited, Pacific Western Airlines, Okanagan Helicopters Limited, Northward Airlines, Rainy Lake Airways Limited, Atlantic Aviation, Heli-Voyageur, Alaska International Air, TransNorth Turbo Air (1971) Limited, Lambair Limited, North American Air Training College, Inexoc Oil Company (Canada) Limited and Northern Transportation Company Limited.
2 (a) No. (b) No.
3.	N/A.


Mr. Cossitt: Were any LIP grants given to any of the following (a) Service Secours, 2383 Grand Trunk St., Montreal (b) Service Secours Inc., 254 St. Catherine East, Montreal (c) Fairshare Inc., 1295 Laprairie Street, Montreal and, if so (i) what were the amounts of such grants (ii) on what dates were they made (iii) what was the reason in each case for giving such grants (iv) does the government consider such recipients to be in competition with private businesses in any way whatsoever?


Mark R. MacGuigan: (a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) No; (i) $42,588 for (a); $142,327 for (b); N/A for (c); (ii) December 19, 1972 for (a); December 19, 1972 for (b); N/A for (c); (iii) (a) and (b) were projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment; (iv) No.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, what amounts did Canada contribute directly in military equipment and supplies to various members of the Organization (a) what countries benefited from such gifts (b) what amounts were received by each?
2.	Did Canada receive any gifts in equipment and supplies from the Organization under the same agreement and, if so (a) from what countries (b) in what amounts from each country?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Since 1950-51 Canada has allocated military equipment and supplies to various NATO members as follows:

(a) Country	(b) Value ($
Belgium	$114,634
Denmark	43,459
France	142,314
West Germany	46,935
Greece	95,142
Italy	180';525
Luxembourg	1,527
Netherlands	122,481
Norway	34,894
Portugal	81,187
Turkey	161,595
United Kingdom	172,503
2. No; (a) and (b) not applicable.


Mr. Howard: On what date will applications for pilot training in the Canadian Armed Forces be opened to persons holding either a senior matriculation or a junior matriculation graduation?


James Armstrong Richardson: Applications for pilot training in the CAF under the Officer Candidate Training Plan-Men (OCTP-M) are currently being accepted from servicemen whose medical profile qualifies them for eligibility in this competition and who hold either senior or junior matriculation status. A total of 60 vacancies are being offered this year under this plan and the competition is not expected to close until December 1, 1973. It is not intended to offer these vacancies to civilian applicants until it can be determined that the number of fully qualified in-service applicants will not be sufficient to meet the stated objective by December 1, 1973. Recruiting for pilot training outside of service resources is currently limited to applicants holding a university degree and/or a diploma from a recognized institute of technology. Under this Direct Entry Officer Plan, selections and enrolments are proceeding until 18 vacancies have been filled.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Has the government considered the proposals by Can Ad Promotions Limited in connection with a distinctive logo for Canadian-owned corporations?
2.	Is the government prepared to give financial encouragement to a buy from Canadian-owned companies promotion as envisaged by Can Ad Promotions Limited?


Herb Breau: 1. There is no record of a proposal by Can Ad Promotions in connection with a distinctive logo for Canadian-owned corporations.
2. Not applicable.

May 9, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has the new plant of Les Entreprises Idlu Ltee of Granby, Quebec, benefitted from a grant of $135,000 from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	Is the capital stock of this firm 100 per cent Canadian-owned?
3.	What are the Christian names and surnames of its directors?
4.	On what date was this firm established?
5.	On what date did it begin its operations?
[ Translation]


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. Yes, the company has accepted an offer of a development incentive in the amount of $135,500, although no momey has yet been paid.
2.	Under the Canada Corporations Act, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information.
3.	Emile Verdier, Jacques O'Keefe, Jean-Marie Dube, Yves Pepin.
4.	Incorporated under Part I of the Canada Corporations Act, July 4, 1972.
5.	Not yet in commercial production.
[ English]


Mr. Howie: What was the civilian strength at CFB Gagetown and CFB Valcartier on the first day of March in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: CFB Gagetown CFB Valcartier Continuous Casual* Continuous Casual*
1 March 1971	542	106	604	1681 March 1972	605	352	642	7591 March 1973	628	143	634	237
*These figures include those employed under the Federal Labour Incentive Program.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many persons on the CBC production staff are of (a) French descent (b) British descent (c) other descent (d) native speakers of a non-official language?
2.	How many CBC employees involved in program production planning are of (a) French descent (b) British descent (c) other descent (d) native speakers of a non-official language?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. The Corporation does not have this personnel information. Under the Canada Labour Code, questions as to race and national origin, colour or religion

are not permitted to be asked of any applicant seeking employment.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Since the government's policy on multieulturalism which ethnic groups have (a) asked (b) received financial assistance from the Canadian Film Development Board for making films relating to their respective ethnic backgrounds?
2.	To date, how much money has been provided by CFDB to each of the ethnic groups interested in making these types of films?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. (a) None; (b) None.
2. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


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



NUMBER OF INFORMATION SERVICES PERSONNEL EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO ESTABLISHMENT OF INFORMATION CANADA

Mr. Mather: 1.	In the month prior to Information Canada establishment, what was the total number of persons employed by all departments of government in information services capacities, including clerical or other staff?
2.	What was the same number for the month of December, 1972?
Return tabled.



DREE-GRANTS TO FIRMS IN PORTNEUF CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Godin: Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion invested funds in the constituency of Portneuf and, if so (a) what is the total amount since the Department was established (b) what is the full list of the firms which received grants (c) what are the details of the agreements entered into in the said constituency since the establishment of this Department (d) did any firms which received such grants go bankrupt and, if so (i) how long after receiving a grant (ii) what amount has the government legally recovered?
Return tabled.
May 9, 1973



CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES BY CORPORATIONS

Mr. Lewis: What were the total amounts and detailed amounts (e.g. contributions to political parties; see p. 33 of Statistics Canada publication "Corporation Taxation Statistics, 1970") reported by corporations for 1968 as "non-allowable current expenses", distributed by nine industry groups and cross-classified by control (foreign, Canadian)?
Return tabled.



Mr. Lewis: What were the total amounts and detailed amounts (e.g. contributions to political parties; see p. 33 of Statistics Canada publication "Corporation Taxation Statistics, 1970") reported by corporations for 1969 as "non-allowable current expenses", distributed by nine industry groups and cross-classified by control (foreign, Canadian)?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the number of unemployed in each province in May, June, July and August of 1971?
2.	What was the number of high school and university students unemployed in each province in May, June, July and August of 1970 and 1971?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF PERSONS BETWEEN AGES OF 60 AND 65, MARCH 31, 1972

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	As of March 31, 1972, how many persons were between the ages of 60 and 65?
2.	How many such persons were male and how many were female?
3.	What was the breakdown of such categories by province? Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 213 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the governmental authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, is it the wish of the House that the notice of motion No. 213 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Oral Questions



QUEBEC CROP LOSSES, 1972-TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND QUEBEC MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 913-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, correspondence and agreements exchanged or signed between the federal Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture of the Province of Quebec concerning grants offered to Quebec agricultural producers who suffered crop losses due to heavy rainfalls in the summer of 1972.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 194.



&quot;HMCS RESTIGOUCHE&quot;-REPORT OF BOARD OF LEGAL INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 194-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the Board of Inquiry into damages done to HMCS Restigouche during refit.
James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, boards of inquiry are designed to enable senior authorities within the Department of National Defence to obtain information on matters within internal military administration and as such are considered to be "internal departmental memoranda" as referred to in the guidelines tabled in the House on March 15, 1973. Under these circumstances I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Rowland:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comply with that request since there have been allegations of deliberate damage having been done to the ship during its refit, in addition to the accidental damage done to its feed water system. It involves additional costs to the Canadian people approaching $1 million. I think the matter must be debated.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
[ Transla tion]
Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that prices rose almost twice as much last month as was

May 9, 1973
Oral Questions
the case a year ago, with accelerating increases in such essentials as food, housing and clothing, and given the fact that the government has said it rejects the conventional idea of slowing down inflation by tightening up the money supply, and has rejected the idea of any sort of incomes policy, can the minister tell us whether this rate of inflation is satisfactory to the government and, if not, what the government intends to do about it?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, of course it is not satisfactory to any member of the House. The government has already acted to increase the disposable income available to Canadians by our last budget measures through the reduction of income tax, the elimination of the sales tax on food and non-alcoholic beverages, by reducing the tariffs on $1,300 million worth of goods, and by agreeing to set up a food prices review board. The government will continue to watch this situation very closely.


INCREASE IN CLOTHING PRICES-INQUIRY AS TO GUIDELINES AND MEASURES TO COMPENSATE- SUGGESTED MEETING WITH INDUSTRY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning the increase in clothing prices. In light of the 1.4 per cent increase last month and expectations of even sharper increases in clothing prices in the months ahead, has the minister or the government formulated any guidelines for clothing prices this year and any measures to avert or compensate for escalating clothing prices in this very essential area?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, any new policy in this area will be announced in the House in the usual manner.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Has the minister made any inquiry of the clothing industry about their price intentions, and does the government find their intentions to be acceptable? If not, is the minister now going to at least meet with them on this important subject?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have not made any specific inquiries. I try to keep informed about the situation, and I will be happy to take the hon. member's suggestion under consideration.


PROPOSED PRICES REVIEW BOARD-INQUIRY AS TO INVITATIONS TO SERVE AS MEMBERS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In replying to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday the minister said that no trouble was being experienced in finding people to serve on the Prices Review Board but that the work of identifying potential members had not been completed. May I ask the minister whether any people have yet been specifically asked to serve on this board and have they agreed?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have made no specific requests or invitations yet. I am still discussing with my colleagues who the appropriate personnel should be.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, in that case I should like to ask the minister how he can assure the House that there is no trouble finding people to serve on the board if in fact he has not yet asked anybody to do so?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that my answer is quite consistent with what I said the other day. One cannot say there is trouble in finding people until one approaches someone and that person indicates an unwillingness to serve.


Mr. Hees:: There is a Martinesque statement if ever I heard one.


SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF DISCOUNT ON RETAIL PRICE OF GOODS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the increase in the cost of living and the continuous inflation, would the Prime Minister consider enacting payment of a discount on the retail price of goods, in agreement of course with Canadian retailers, and this in order not to resort to a freeze of prices and salaries?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into the matter to ascertain whether the government, within the framework of its constitutional authority, would have the power to take such action.


INCREASE IN FOOD AND SHELTER COSTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. May I ask the minister if the government now finds the present rate of increase in food costs and shelter costs unacceptable and, if so, can he tell the House whether the government has agreed on a contingency plan and whether that contingency plan will be implemented if prices continue to increase?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. gentleman frames his question in terms of the rise in food prices, which affects all of us in this country, I must respond to him by saying that a system of price and wage controls would not solve that problem. It has not been solved by any prices system in the United States or the United Kingdom. The problem of food is a problem of world shortage of basic commodities

coffee, grains, meat and so on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East for a supplementary and then try to complete the first round of questions.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the present trend of increases in the cost of living continues, will the government implement its contingency plan?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, both the preamble to the question and the substance of the question are hypothetical.


Gerald William Baldwin: So is the contingency plan.


GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS TO PROVINCIAL FINANCE MINISTERS TO REDUCE HEALTH COSTS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Finance would have made a statement on motions informing the House as to the conference that took place yesterday. In the absence of that, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the federal government made any proposal to the conference for improvements in the health delivery system for the purpose of reducing health costs, or was the federal government's proposition limited to financial haggling with the provinces?


Mr. Lalonde:: Mr. Speaker, I missed the last words of the question.


An hon. Member:: Was there haggling?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member please repeat the last part of his question?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether the federal government made any proposals with regard to a new, changed or improved health delivery system to reduce the costs of health care, or whether the federal proposal was limited to financial haggling or negotiations, if you like, with the provinces?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the government's offer to the provinces was of course related to financing of health services, but its specific purpose was to introduce much greater flexibility, enabling provinces to improve their services and also to control the increase in health costs.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary may I ask the minister exactly what proposals the federal government made that would assist the provinces in reducing their health care costs, or was it simply the federal government's intention to pull out from under the escalating health costs despite the fact that the provinces were introduced into the scheme by a federal law?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the fact that we were making an offer that, even according to the projections of costs
Oral Questions
made by the provinces, would result in about $1.1 billion more for the provinces over the next five years, should show that the federal government was not trying to get out of this, but was trying to ensure better service to the Canadian population in this field.


David Lewis: In view of the fact it is obvious to anyone that that kind of settlement with the provinces cannot in any way control costs within the provinces and that costs may go up away beyond the offer made by the federal government at any given time, no matter which government is involved or at what time, and in view of the fact the escalation in health costs is the result of increased and excessive doctors' incomes and other incomes and the unavailability-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is running short of time. Perhaps he should ask the question. We have to make some progress.


David Lewis: As I say, it is also due to the unavailability of alternative health homes for people who now occupy hospitals. I want to ask the minister whether the federal government has made a study of health costs with a view to installing in Canada some new form of health delivery?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there have been several such studies made, in particular the study on community health centres that was made public last year. Once more, the whole gist of the federal offer was to answer the problem raised by the provinces to the effect that the present system favoured the development of acute care hospital beds and medical treatment. The whole gist of our offer is to make sure that the provinces will have all the flexibility they need better to control costs, but the control of costs is their responsibility.


HEALTH CARE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT UNIVERSALITY, PORTABILITY AND QUALITY WILL BE MAINTAINED
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the haggling over health costs, which are 4 per cent lower than the government's cost of operation, between the federal minister and his counterparts, can the minister give an assurance that there will not be any sacrificing of the principles of universality and portability or the quality of health care across Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the assurance that has been very clearly given all during these negotiations with the provinces is to the effect that the basic standards of comprehensiveness, accessibility, universality and portability would have to be maintained under any new scheme of health financing. As far as the rest is concerned, our proposals are aimed at giving the provinces all the flexibility they need in this area to do whatever they feel is appropriate to control costs and provide better services.

May 9, 1973
Oral Questions


EDUCATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Sepaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State on another aspect of yesterday's conference. Will the minister state for the university community that the federal government has no intention of withdrawing from its undoubted national and constitutional responsibility for funding post-secondary education, despite any frustrations felt from yesterday's meeting?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the proposal I put forward yesterday on behalf of the federal government, which was received with such widespread support from the provinces, does in fact reflect the commitment of the federal government to continue the support characteristic of the past for post-secondary education. If the particular formula I offered yesterday is not acceptable, we are quite willing to revert to the continuation of the present scheme which seems to meet with more favour from some provinces.


HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CARE-INQUIRY AS TO GUARANTEE IN PROPOSALS TO PROVINCES THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL PAY HALF THE COST
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is there anything in the proposals he placed before the provinces which will guarantee to the provinces that half the cost of providing hospital and medical care will be borne by the federal government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to refer the hon. member to the documents that have been tabled today by the Minister of Finance and which were put before the conference. I think they will show that there is no such guarantee with regard to two specific programs. However, as I said, we have used the provincial projections of cost over the next five years and the offer we made arrives at a result that is $1.1 billion more favourable to the provinces than the continuation of the present scheme. Therefore I do not think we should have too many fears in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A considerable number of members are seeking supplementaries on this subject. I bring to the attention of hon. members that we have not yet concluded the first round of questioning. In fairness, I think the Chair should be allowed to recognize- [Translation]
the hon. member for Temiscamingue, after which, if hon. members so desire, we shall return to consideration of this matter.

For the moment, I think the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask a supplementary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but I yield to one of my colleagues.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare a question which is not necessarily related to the debate that has just taken place.
Since certain members rushed to pick up the working paper on social security in Canada after it was tabled in the House, can the minister tell us if additional copies will be made available to the public, which has asked for them?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to note that there is still interest in that paper and I have ordered a new printing so that hon. members may have as many copies as they wish.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the Prime Minister's homily on espionage the other day, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not two staff members of the Soviet Union's Ottawa embassy entered the east block of the parliament buildings very recently, waited until the security guards were looking the other way, raced upstairs, asked for top secret reports in the room in which they are kept, had turned over to them reports from Moscow which they asked for, and at the end of two hours, having read them, thanked those in charge and left?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the paraphrase of the article in the Toronto Star that I also read. There is no substance to the report whatever.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the report was by Mr. Reguly of whom a former government had the same view when he made a statement. Has he been communicated with to find out whether or not the statement he made, as reported in the Toronto Star in detail, is correct? What has been said to him? Has the minister been in touch with any

May 9, 1973

of the officials who advise they are most embarrassed by what did not take place?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member will understand that after this report appeared in the Toronto Star there was very great concern that there might be some foundation to the story.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Therefore, most careful inquiries were made, and as far as we can ascertain there is no foundation whatsoever to the story.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question follows the question put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert but it is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the debate that took place in the House yesterday on security matters, can the minister explain why confidential matters from his department are brought to my attention?


Marc Lalonde: No, I cannot, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs also. In light of a report in today's newspaper of a further attack on Canadian ICCS troops, may I ask the minister whether this incident is enough to convince the Canadian government that the time has now come to get out of Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I only heard the report on the radio this morning and we have not had a direct report from Saigon. This is another deplorable incident, if it is true, as I expect it is. As I said in reply to a similar question the other day, this is accummulating evidence that we will have to balance when we make our decision.


Henry Perrin Beatty: May I ask the minister how many more Canadian lives it is going to take before he abandons this disastrous role?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I answer this question by repeating what I said in commenting on the tragedy when Captain Laviolette was killed, that the problem is not how many Canadians might be killed. There are always risks involved in any operation of this kind. The test is whether there is anything useful being done as a result of our activities there.
Oral Questions HOUSING



REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN FORECLOSURES BY CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I put a similar question recently to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for housing. In light of the fact that a number of foreclosures are now being proceeded with by CMHC where the equity of the owner is substantial, in some cases as high as $10,000 and the arrears are less than $400-I have examples-and since instructions that take place have not only been issued but foreclosures are taking place in such cases, would the Prime Minister consider imposing a moratorium on this kind of foreclosure, particularly when the cost of housing this last month went up 6 per cent over the same period last year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire into the allegation and see whether the hon. member's question can be answered.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When the Prime Minister is investigating this matter, would he look into the case of certain legal firms in Canada that were appointed on a straight patronage basis and where the amount of arrears on the mortgage was $358 and the legal bill to collect that amount of money was $597? I can understand my socialist friends being worried because they are the highest paid counsel for the labour unions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the shocking revelation yesterday that the body of an Indian baby, Belinda Manybears, who died in an Edmonton hospital, was sent home to the mother in a cardboard box and also that an unauthorized autopsy was performed on the body, and bearing in mind the clearcut responsibility of the federal government for the Indian people, has the government investigated this incident and, if so, can the Prime Minister tell us what action is being taken?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to answer, this question has already been the subject of an investigation and everything seems to indicate that it comes under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The Alberta Minister of Health has himself stated that he was making a thorough investigation on the matter.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that three other incidents were also revealed yesterday in one small Alberta

May 9, 1973
Oral Questions
community, and in view of the fact that an Indian spokesman said this morning that there may be others as well, is the federal government taking action to ensure that nothing like this will occur in the future?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly communicate and, in particular, with my colleague from the province of Alberta on this matter.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the aftermath of yesterday's collapsed dominion-provincial conference and in an effort to take some steps to counter the seriously accelerating rise in the cost of living, will the minister give consideration to bringing in immediately his measure to increase family allowances, the legislative expedition of which my party has pledged itself to already?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated many times, we are trying to introduce this bill in the House as soon as possible.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the minister whether in light of the serious increase in the cost of living he and his very important department are taking any steps to ameliorate the effects of this shocking increase?


Marc Lalonde: The question not only affects my very important department; it also affects my very important provincial colleagues with whom I have to consult and work in this respect.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT QUALITY OF MEDICAL CARE WILL BE MAINTAINED

Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks by the hon. member for York South, which I cannot accept-


Some hon. Members:: Split!


Samuel Victor Railton: -and knowing that the majority of illness cannot be prevented and must be skillfully treated, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to reassure me that his department is spending enough on maintaining quality medical care and not spending its money entirely on preventive medicine?


Marc Lalonde: If my hon. friend would look at the estimates of my department, the total cost of medical care and hospital insurance will clearly indicate that these two programs still eat up a very substantial part of the funds allocated to health care in this country.



MEDICAL CARE-REQUEST FOR FULL PARTICIPATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF TERRITORIAL COUNCILS IN FUTURE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the people of the north, not forming part of the provinces, are very concerned about medical and health care, as are other Canadians, can the minister assure those living in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories that at future federal-provincial conferences they will be invited, through their elected territorial councils, to take part as full participants rather than attending merely as observers?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I do not think that, with regard to conferences dealing with health matters, I could differ from the procedure prevailing at all other federal-provincial conferences; on this question, the matter does not come under my jurisdiction.

[ English]



AIRPORTS


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last spring, the right hon. gentleman promised residents of the Toronto region that he would cancel the Pickering airport development if more than 50 per cent of the people in Metro Toronto were opposed to it. Since the NDP last night in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications voted to give the government support for money to push ahead with this project-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might ask his question directly without reference to proceedings in a committee. It might be easier, at least from a procedural standpoint and from the point of view of the Chair, if the hon. member could ask his question directly.


Ronald George Atkey: Very well, Mr. Speaker. In these circumstances is the Prime Minister prepared to treat this NDP support as indisputable evidence of public opinion in Toronto being in favour of the airport or would he consider taking into account the recent public opinion poll published-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
May 9, 1973



NATIONAL DEFENCE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. As the Treasury Board has not yet taken any action on the very logical and fair request by Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving in Viet Nam for increases in their special allowances to bring those allowances up to a level comparable with those paid to External Affairs personnel serving in the same area, will the minister advise the House when the government intends to take action on this request and, in so doing, preserve the principle of equal pay for equal work in which it professes to believe?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The present scale of pay and allowances for the military in relation to the civil side of the public service was arrived at after a study lasting a year and a half designed to produce this kind of over-all equivalence. On an over-all basis it was found that the military service suffered a balance of disadvantage as compared with the civilian employees of the order of about 31/2 per cent. Consequently, military pay and allowances were set at about 31/2 per cent higher in general than those of civilians. The military pay and allowance system is structured on the basis of peace-keeping operations which carry a higher operations risk component than civil foreign service, and this is rather unusual for people in the foreign service class who have not entered into military service. Consequently there are special allowances for civilians in respect of Viet Nam.


An hon. Member:: Would you mind repeating that?


George Harris Hees: Since one man's life is just as important as any other man's life when serving his country, would the minister consider taking another look at this matter and giving our armed services personnel a fair break as they have very logically requested?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister taken any steps to convene a meeting between the oil interests and the fishing industry, especially the lobster fishing industry, before the establishment of new tanker routes along the Atlantic coast? If so, when can we expect a report on the areas to be covered by these new routes?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, I am supposed to have summoned all parties interested in lobster fishing. I am not aware that the department has issued such a summons.
Oral Questions



PROPOSED NEW TANKER ROUTES ON ATLANTIC COAST-CONSULTATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORT AND FISHERIES ON EFFECT ON FISHING

Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question bears on that raised by the hon. member for South Shore and is also directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that a meeting is going on today in Halifax at the call of officials of his department, can the minister assure the House that consultations have already taken place between officials of his department and those of the Department of Fisheries with respect to the effect these proposed tanker routes will have on fishing activities and on the lives and safety of fishermen in the area concerned?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, senior officials from my department are participating in these meetings. It is certainly not my department which decides what routes the oil tankers must follow, especially as regards pollution. I think that this comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the serious consequences to the construction and manufacturing industries which will result from the increase in structural steel prices announced yesterday by the major producers, and in view of the fact that profits of the steel companies showed an increase this year compared with last year of more than 60 per cent, would the minister consider discussing with the steel companies the maintenance of the current price level and the forgoing of this unconscionable new price increase?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I shall be happy to consider that suggestion.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government of Canada prepared to use its authority as the sole shareholder of the Canada Develop-

May 9, 1973
Oral Questions
ment Corporation to ensure that the corporation's head office is located in Vancouver as promised?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


William Douglas Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Minister of Finance heard my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: He heard it all right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And you are going to hear about it too.


John Napier Turner: I heard the question, Mr. Speaker, but I was just waiting to see whether you would allow me to respond.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: And hoping he would not.


John Napier Turner: By statute the decision as to where the head office of the Canada Development Corporation should be located is a decision for the board of directors. I have, however, made it clear to the president and chairman of the board of the Canada Development Corporation that the government favours locating the head office of the corporation in western Canada.


An hon. Member:: How far west?


George Harris Hees: That's not going to be enough.


Erik Nielsen: I live in the most western city in Canada.


An hon. Member:: You will have to put more on the platter than that.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I should like to direct this question to his parliamentary secretary. As school children on the Fort Alexander Indian reservation in Manitoba have not been attending school since last Friday and have only been attending half time since March 6 because of the lack of facilities and school space, and as we have contacted the department on a constant basis over the last week, will the minister now direct officials of his department to provide adequate school facilities for the children on that reservation?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there really are some policy decisions involved in this question which will require me to take it as notice. I do like to give complete answers but I will take it as notice and bring it to the hon. minister's attention when he returns tomorrow. We are very much aware of the situation at Fort Alexander and we have taken measures to correct certain things that we could correct. There is still a shortage of proper building facilities in certain areas, particularly at the north end. There are some very good and adequate facilities at the south end. We did take measures to correct the water situation in the north end. There were some problems with the water there, but recent tests have shown that the water system has been totally rectified. The coliform counts are now low and satisfactory. We have taken some measures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was going to say that I was pleased the hon. member did not have an answer, but that might have been unfair to him.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary. Will the department relay that information to the leaders of the Indian band at Fort Alexander and convince them that it is so?


Len Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
He *	*



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since at this time we appear to be seeing the unfolding of another chapter of the so-called chicken and egg war, I shoulk like to ask the minister whether or not the National Farm Marketing Council has taken any positive action in respect of the seizure of Manitoba eggs in the province of British Columbia? If so, what does the national council intend to do about this, and will we see a move toward the free interprovincial movement of products in Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have talked with the chairman of the National Farm Marketing Council who has been in touch with the president of the egg marketing group. I have asked him to make sure that harmonious relations are rebuilt if they are showing signs of breaking down, because I feel it is most important that they work together for the betterment of all egg producers in Canada.


Jack Burnett Murta: In view of the minister's reply and as it seems that at the present time the council is not acting with any kind of force or determination in the matter, I should like to ask whether this very serious problem will go to the courts if it cannot be solved by the council, and, if so, will this not partially destroy the credibility of the National Farm Marketing Council in respect of future negotiations?
May 9, 1973


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that many of these people on the different provincial boards and the national board seem reasonable and responsible, and I am sure they will come to some happy conclusion.


Mr. Jack Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to that posed by the hon. member for Lisgar to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the chicken and egg war between Manitoba and British Columbia. Has the minister ascertained whether or not Manitoba producers had in fact overproduced their quotas and, if not, has the marketing council some authority to demand compensation for the eggs that were sold as broken eggs in British Columbia?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a detailed report from the chairman of the National Farm Marketing Council. I think this falls within his duties and authority under the legislation. I have not received that report yet, but I will inform the hon. member and the House as soon as the report is submitted to me.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister has expressed a desire to lower food prices and tariffs between Canada and the United States. Is he making every effort to lower tariffs between the provinces in order that we may have lower food prices in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my main concern is to see that the producers of eggs and the consumers get a fair deal.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You should make sure that the producers in Manitoba get a fair deal.


Eugene Whelan: That has been the aim and drive of the marketing board in respect of eggs or any other product that may come within its jurisdiction.



ELECTION EXPENSES


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader whether he can give the House an approximate date when he expects to bring in the government's election expenses bill, and can he indicate whether the bill will include two omissions of last year, namely, a limitation on parties and some measure of disclosure of contributions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a definite date, but I expect that the bill will be introduced well before the end of the current session.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the report from Manitoba today that the Conservative and Liberal parties have combined in four constituencies to campaign against the NDP, will the Prime Minister assure the House that if such an
Oral Questions
understandable organic union takes place at the federal level we will be told before the next election is called?


An hon. Member:: Slander.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Ask Lewis about the organic union.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
When will he be in a position to give this House details on the implementation of the decentralization program of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the basic program was announced very recently, and so far as I know the details of the basic program were sent to all hon. members. I will double check to make sure, and if they were not I will make sure that they are.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: To
show you how fair I am, Mr. Speaker, if the answer to my question is in the affirmative I will not ask a supplementary. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can confirm the very welcome rumours to the effect that Canada is very seriously reconsidering its decision to purchase the light Scorpion tank from the United Kingdom?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we are giving consideration to extending the service life of the Centurion as an alternative to buying the Scorpion, but no decision has been taken yet.
3574

May 9, 1973
Oral Questions NATIONAL SECURITY



REPORT THAT SOVIET EMBASSY STAFF MEMBERS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, since the question that I intended to ask has already been asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, I should like to ask a supplementary. In view of the fact the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the House a moment ago that there is no foundation to reports that members of the Soviet embassy staff entered the east block and examined confidential documents, I would ask the Solicitor General if the reason the government does not know anything about such an incident is that the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, which we have been told is responsible for the security of government buildings, was too occupied otherwise investigating and compiling information on certain Canadians including members of this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton East. The minister rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Allmand:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have stated to the House on several occasions that the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group in my department does not investigate Members of Parliament or anybody else.


An hon. Member:: What do they do?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. Is the hon. member rising on the question of privilege?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the minister on the same question of privilege, he stated that his group does not do these things. I think it is about time the minister gave the House a complete and full explanation of what his group does do.


William Warren Allmand: I have done this several times.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe)- Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of renewed hostilities in Lebanon, can the minister report on the condition and security of Canadians who may be in the area where war is being waged?
Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the outbreak of

violence in Lebanon we sent inquiries to our office in Beirut and they report that Canadian nationals do not seem to be in any danger, but we are keeping the situation under review.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when the House can expect amendments to the Immigration Act and if those amendments will include enlarging or expanding the Immigration Appeal Board to increase the facilities throughout Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I hope that amendments to the act will be introduced in the House shortly. I am negotiating vigorously with the House leader to give this matter high priority. As regards what the bill will contain, that will be disclosed when the bill is brought in for first reading.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has he consulted his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, regarding the issuance of a trade information letter on the use of vegetable protein used in particular in processed meat products?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, officials of our two departments have been in contact about this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we have reached the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member might ask a supplementary question, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt and perhaps another questioner.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Has agreement been reached between the two departments concerning the wording on the lable to be used on such products as superburgers, etc.?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This is being discussed between the two departments, and obviously when the trade information circular is released it will indicate the agreement in question.

May 9, 1973



LUMBER SHORTAGE AND INCREASED COST-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the demand for Canadian lumber in Japan and the United States and the shortage in Canada, with escalating costs to Canadian consumers over the past year, is the minister aware of the situation and what does the government intend to do about it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the matter of export controls comes under the jursidiction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I believe he answered a question about this yesterday.


John R. Rodriguez: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lethbridge will be recognized, and then I will have to call orders of the day. Perhaps we can pursue the matter raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt tomorrow in priority to other matters.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that in a statement in the House on May 7 regarding ICCS the minister stated that Canadian participation would continue until the end of this month, can the minister state whether Canada is not in fact bound by agreement to give 90 days notice regarding withdrawal and in reality we must participate at least until the end of August regardless of the decision taken on May 30?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no. As I explained in the House on several occasions, we made a specific reservation on that point.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member for Scarborough West rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Harney:: My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the remarks contained in the question of the hon. member for St. Paul's which you quite appropriately ruled out of order on the grounds that it reflected on a vote in a committee. Nevertheless, it is a matter of record in the House and in the minds of the public that he has alleged that my party voted in favour of the Pickering airport last night when the matter came up in the estimates. That is not at all the case. We voted against his motion. I myself am still opposed to the Pickering airport, and I think this matter should be made clear.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member for St. Paul's kindly resume his seat. I will recognize him in a moment. The point raised by the hon. member shows the difficulty by importing into our debates the proceedings in committees. We might go on for some time, I suppose, trying to ascertain what happened exactly in a committee of the House and why certain members of the committee voted in one way rather than another, which shows the difficulty and the danger of bringing into the debates in the House the debates and proceedings in committees. That is why I thought I had to rule the original question out of order. I would hope there would be no further debate on the point.


Ronald George Atkey: I rise on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate fully the comments you have made. There was not in any way any attempt to rehash the matter before the committee last night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: The result in the committee last night did change substantially the position of the government in view of public statements made by the Prime Minister. Also, I think I should clarify, for purposes of the allegation made by the hon. member for Scarborough West, the fact that my motion said that they have given the government support for the money to push ahead with the project.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Ronald George Atkey: Those were my words, and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order, as House leader for our party.
We have had numerous meetings with other parties to discuss setting up offices and secretariats in ridings. Agreements had been concluded, serious discussions had taken place and we had arrived at conclusions. Now that the House has resumed its business, it seems that everything has been upset and nothing is operating anymore.
My point of order is to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) if the deals that are taking place now are serious and what they are specifically, since I have no other means to find out what has been said during the parliamentary leaders' meetings.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises this matter as a point of order. It is a question that could have been asked during the oral question period; I have no objection, providing the House gives its consent, against it being asked to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), providing we eventually come to the business of the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to discuss the matter privately with my hon. friend because most of the
26314-9J

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
discussions have been conducted in that manner and I hesitate to break that practice at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to ask a second question?


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise again on a point of order.
It is precisely there that lies the problem. Those discussions were held in camera but when we reach the House matters are different. Once and for all things should be done in public and we should not be afraid to provide the Canadian people with an adequate service. Anyhow, we are in 1973.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I think my point of order is very important because it relates to the discussion on the various points of order and questions of privilege that came before Your Honour a few moments ago. I would like to say that the hon. member, when speaking to his motion which was defeated last night in the committee, made it very well known in the committee that his motion did not preclude that he was against the Pickering Airport-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please, I call on the co-operation of hon. members. I think that nothing at all can be gained by raising alleged questions of privilege and alleged points of order during the question period. I call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Davis that Bill C-131, respecting wildlife in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-131 which recognizes the responsibility of the Government of Canada to protect our heritage in this nation in terms of wild animals and other resources that were here prior to our coming, some of which have almost disappeared. This bill recognizes, also, that it is important that, if we are to justify our occupation of this half of the North American continent we must look after those things that are naturally here, so that they will be available for our children, our grandchildren and those who come after

us who will develop and make Canada the great land that it has the capacity to become.
I commend the minister for the suggestion in this bill that the Canadian Wildlife Service will extend its work in research and pathology in connection with toxic substances and other matters affecting wild animals and wildlife generally. I hope the minister will deal with the serious question of trapping. I have received many letters from young children in my riding decrying the use of the leg-hold trap in the taking of wild animals by trappers and others, decrying the injuries caused to animals whose legs are torn off or they are trapped in these devices and suffer for days before their frozen bodies are picked up and taken to be skinned. We have now developed the Conibear trap, but even with it I understand there are problems in that it is heavy to move around and sometimes the effect of this trap, which is supposed to kill wild animals instantaneously, results in the whole of their face being mutilated. We need an investigation or inquiry into new forms of trapping that will not be as injurious to animals as the existing devices.
The work done by the minister in connection with migratory birds has been excellent. I hope that in developing the thesis behind this bill he will extend this conservation work to other forms of migratory animals, indeed to animals of the high seas in the northern part of Canada where sometimes it is difficult to know whether we own land or sea.
I commend the minister for bringing this whole matter to the attention of the House of Commons, but having inspected the bill I find that it is one the most loosey-goosey pieces of legislation to come before the House for some time. It gives the minister powers. It provides that he "may" do all sorts of things. He may undertake, promote and recommend measures; he may initiate conferences; he may undertake programs of research; he may establish advisory committees; he may co-ordinate and implement; he may take charge of this or carry out measures with respect to that. There is only one place in the bill where it says the minister "shall" do anything. That is in clause 11, which provides that the minister shall spend wisely money given to him, in accordance with the provisions laid down when it is given to him.
What we are really doing in this legislation is giving the minister authority to conduct almost any kind of program that he wishes. The minister can go charging off in one direction one day; the next day he can determine that that is not his priority and go charging off in another direction. At no time is he under any obligation to come back to the House of Commons and say what the priorities should be and where the limited amount of social capital available should be used in promoting and doing something for the preservation of wildlife.
I think it is high time we established some mandatory priorities. The minister should bring legislation before the House in which he says, "Members of Parliament, I want to do certain things and these are my priorities. These are the wildlife species I want to preserve. This, Members of Parliament, is the problem and this is specifically what I am asking you to authorize me to do." But legislation in this loosey-goosey fashion is not fair to the House and is not fair to the people of Canada.
May 9, 1973_________________COMMONS DEBATES ___ ____ _____ ________3577
There are provisions in the bill under which agreements can be made with the provinces for joint undertakings and agreements can be made with private organizations, with the permission of the provinces. I think it is proper that the minister should have permission to make certain agreements but we must ask, what kind of agreements? Agreements to do what; to preserve what? To say "just to preserve wild animals," in the total picture, is not definitive enough. It does not specifically set out to the House what the minister is really going to do. What we have is motherhood legislation. Wild animals are popular, it is nice to have a bill on wildlife, so we have a nice bill on wildlife that does not say a darn thing.
There is one problem that really disturbs me about this bill. It comes with clause 13, which provides that the governor in council may make regulations prohibiting certain things, specifying measures, and so on. The clause 14 reads:
Every person who violates any provision of this act or the regulations-
Mr. Speaker, there are no compulsory or mandatory provisions in the bill, so clause 14 must mean regulations. -is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
What we have is criminal law introduced with criminal sanctions upon summary conviction, without even the regulations, rules or even the aims and objects of the regulations and rules brought before the House of Commons. The minister may make a regulation, he may even make a regulation to cover something that happened in the past, and the person who broke that regulation would be guilty of an offence and subject to punishment upon summary conviction. This kind of thing should not appear in legislation; it is the type of activity that should be stricken from this bill. If the minister has rules and regulations and if they are to carry with them penal results, they should be set out in detail so that the people of Canada know what laws they are likely to break.
I want to make some suggestions with respect to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it should set out in detail the extent of federal government involvement in the preservation of wildlife. It should set out in detail to what extent it is a matter of federal authority and to what extent the federal government is looking to the provinces, the counties and the territories of Canada to do their part under the legislation.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, federal responsibility clearly encompasses those animals and birds subject to large migration, and in particular migration across provincial boundaries. That may well apply to the caribou herd and presumably it applies to whales in our inland seas. It may well apply to other animals and birds with which I am not too familiar, although I am sure the minister has in his department people who are familiar with them.
The whole question of wildlife in the territories should be brought under this legislation. In answer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) last night, I presume the minister was really saying that wildlife in the territories is a matter for the territorial council. Mr. Speaker, the territories are not yet provinces. I suggest that the assets and resources of the territories belong to all
Wildlife Protection
of Canada; thus they are the direct responsibility of the minister and should be specifically set out as being within the federal competence. The minister should also make it quite clear that it is a federal responsibility to co-ordinate research carried out by provincial and other authorities in connection with wildlife. To some extent that is contained in this bill, but it is not clear and specific.
The whole question of wildlife within federal parks is a loose one. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is responsible for federal parks and apparently has staff looking after wildlife in those parks. But we should have one minister to look after wildlife problems in Canada. Surely, if we are going to have a wildlife act it should set out that the Minister of the Environment is responsible for wildlife in all federal parks and all federal public lands.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think the legislation should set out what the endangered species are, and it should set out clearly what the minister should do and is directed to do with respect to the preservation of those endangered species. When legislation provides for a grants system to provinces and private organizations, surely this House should have an opportunity to know what kind of grants the minister has in mind. Perhaps the legislation should be specific and set out the type of projects that the federal treasury will sponsor or in which it will share the costs of the provinces and private organizations. In my opinion and in the opinion of some others it is not good enough to give the minister the right to make grants or agreements, because it leaves the whole matter open to the question of who knows whom; who has a project; is money available, if so, make an application and if it is politically sound, money will be made available. This is just not good enough, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Alexander:: That is Liberal patronage.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, it is political patronage. One of the problems in Canada is that of overlapping jurisdiction. This occurs in many areas, and in the management of wildlife it is a real plague. For example, the township where I have my cottage licences hunting and the county provides bounties for bush wolves, so both the county and the township are specifically involved in the management of wildlife. The province has myriad rules with respect to hunting and conservation, and now the federal government comes into the act with two ministers looking after wildlife.


Mr. Jamieson:: Three.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Perhaps it is three: we have the territorial government, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and now the Minister of the Environment. This results in a waste of the taxpayers' money on overlapping and conflicting authority. It is time the Government of Canada showed leadership and set out what it is going to look after and what it expects the provinces and the territories to look after with respect to wildlife. Perhaps we could get out of this conflict and overlapping of authority that occurs not only in this field but in many other areas such as health care and fire prevention. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and, I suggest, yours are tired of paying taxes to governments which all do the

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
same thing and all take credit for it. Here we have a motherhood bill. I am sure the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) sincerely wants to do something to protect our wildlife, but he should get down to it and set out just what that is. He should not present us with a bill that is all-encompassing and gives him power to go off in one direction or another without regard to the cost or the jurisdiction he takes unto himself. This is the problem we face here and in other fields of legislative competence.
The problem with this bill is that it allows the minister to enter into new programs without a budget, without any limit and without any real legislative control. It is not a responsible bill and does not reflect concern for the citizens' tax dollars. It permits the minister to enter into one program today and another one tomorrow, to go whichever way the Globe and Mail tells him to go, to get involved in something that is popular now and, if it is not popular in a year or two, to get involved in another program. We have had too many of these new programs and it is time we got down to the question of priorities.
The people of Canada are among the most heavily taxed in the world and are rapidly becoming the most regulated in the world. It is time the government looked at the concept of wildlife preservation in all its aspects and considered it as a total package. It is time the minister and the government gave this country leadership for dealing with our resources and preserving them so that our children and grandchildren will benefit from them. This kind of loosey-goosey legislation, this kind of motherhood bill really will do nothing to build a better Canada.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP-and my remarks do not pertain exclusively to my group-have for a long time been concerned about wildlife and wildlife management. We are concerned about preserving the natural habitat of wildlife in this land and the respect that should be paid to nature itself. We appreciate the bill and realize that it tends to deal with an area that is largely under provincial legislation not only with respect to wildlife but to many matters which affect wildlife. For instance, provincial governments have jurisdiction over general questions involving land and land use or the misuse of land. That area of concern has an effect upon wildlife. The question of waters under provincial jurisdiction also may involve matters which have serious effects upon wildlife. Activities involving forestry, logging, mining, recreation in provincial parks and camping grounds, hunting, fishing and logging which come under the jurisdiction of the provinces impinge in one way or another upon species of wildlife.
In his opening statement the minister indicated that this bill has been the subject of discussion with provincial governments and that each of the ten provinces has endorsed it. I did not grasp clearly, from what the minister said last night in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), the relationships involving the federal government, this bill and the territorial governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The minister intimated that the approach taken with respect to those territories was the same as that taken with respect to the provinces, but his statement was

not clear and I think requires clarification. To my mind, at least, there ought to be a clearer understanding of how this bill involves the territories, particularly in light of oil and natural gas discoveries in the northern areas and the dangers that those discoveries can bring not only to wildlife but to the terrain itself.
I am of the opinion that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should not be given jurisdiction, under this bill, with respect to national parks; I do not think there ought to be duplication of responsibility in these areas at the federal level. I think we should make that clear now. This legislation ought to apply to wildlife in the national parks, otherwise two approaches to protection may be taken and the matter may involve different jurisdictions.
The pressures upon wildlife in this land are very large, very impressive, very dangerous and largely unknown. The bulk of our population are city folk. They live in an urban setting. I do not say this in an unkind way. However, people who live in rural areas come in contact daily with nature and know more of nature than do people who live in cities. As I said, the bulk of our population lives in cities and works in cities and only rarely, at vacation time or the odd weekend, are city people able to go to the country. So, often they do not really understand what wildlife is and do not have adequate knowledge of it. In the sense that we do not understand the effects of all aspects of human activity, the pressures on wildlife are largely unknown.
Sometimes we build dams, as happened in my province, as the minister knows, and we create artificial lakes, thereby flooding thousands of acres. Sometimes we flood moose pasture and elk pasture and destroy food sources for antlered animals. This tends to kill them off or drive them away to other areas. This, in turn, creates additional pressures on foods available in other areas. Also, the operations of logging companies drive fur-bearing animals from the area. The consequences of indiscriminate logging, coupled with dry summers and forest fires, create additional dangers to animals and birds in the forests.
Although hunting from helicopters is not permitted or authorized under provincial law, as I understand it, one hears of hunters using helicopters to hunt. They may come either from within or without Canada. These people are able to charter helicopters, and they fly around the mountain tops and ridges and pick off mountain sheep and goats as if catching the proverbial fish in the proverbial barrel. This sort of indiscriminate hunting indulged in for the acquisition of heads and horns, and not for meat, indulged in because the hunter simply wishes to kill something, continues and endangers the wildlife of this land.
We are familiar from reading, if by no other way, of the effects of pesticides, herbicides, chemicals and effluents which are discharged by industrial plants. We know that fertilizers which used to contain phosphates and detergents have been flushed down into the ocean where they have contaminated fish and birds who feed upon those fish. Those chemicals are destructive and injurious. Therefore, because we must concern ourselves about these matters we endorse the principles contained within the bill.
We know that because in this country there are different provincial jurisdictions, one set of rules and concepts
May 9, 1973_________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________3579
will apply in one province and may not apply in another. These concepts at the provincial level may alter from time to time. The provinces may adopt more rigid views at any given moment in preserving wildlife, or their thinking may become not so rigid. There is a good thought within the bill to the effect that we may be able to develop-and I hope we will-uniformity of concept with respect to preserving wildlife throughout all the provinces and territories.
I am a bit unhappy that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is to be free to go its own way, because that way may or may not coincide with the way the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) wants to go. Apart from that, I am a bit unhappy about the provisions of clause 9, which provides that the minister may, in co-operation with one or more provincial governments, do certain things. I assume from what the minister said last night that he conceives that to also mean in co-operation with the territories, but the bill does not say that and I think it excludes it. I would like to know just what that clause means. In any event, it provides that the minister may, in co-operation with the provinces, take whatever measures he deems necessary for the protection of any species of non-domestic animal in danger of extinction.
The phrase "in danger of extinction" is not clear. It makes one think that only when a species of wildlife reaches the stage of being in danger of extinction will a move be made to correct the situation. In many ways, when that state of affairs is conceived and understood, it is too late; the damage has been done. We all know of species which make an almost superhuman effort just to keep alive the process of propagation.
I would like to see the clause altered so that it does not carry the implication that we only move at the last possible moment. That is what the phrase "in danger of extinction" means to me. It does not give any clear indication of the basis for deciding whether a species of wildlife is in danger of extinction. Also, the bill does not take into account what species of wildlife may be in danger of extinction in one area or another. I refer, for example, to islands. Some species are peculiar to certain islands. Any undue hunting, industry, use of pesticides, helicopters, or any of the other things I mentioned earlier, such as mining and logging operations, could not only place wildlife in the area in danger of extinction but could extinguish it completely.
There are areas of northern British Columbia where the grizzly bear is now extinct. Because of new roads and people, he is moving farther and farther away. Even though we have different ideas about the grizzly bear, it is a rather shy animal, as are most animals in the forest. They want to keep out of our way as much as we want to keep out of theirs. When an animal hears a person in the bush, it gets out of his way; it is not interested in meeting him. Because of road building, logging and aircraft, more people are moving into these remote areas.
Grizzly bears are feared and hunted. This is the concept we have of someone who is hunting a grizzly bear. It is ridiculous, because usually the hunter is in a blind in a
Wildlife Protection
tree some distance from the grizzly bear. He has a high-powered rifle with a powerful telescope. The poor grizzly bear, hundreds of yards away, does not have a clue what is going on until he has been shot. The "fearless" hunter then climbs down from his safe position and collects his trophy of a grizzly bear head or skin. This lack of respect for wildlife is indicative of what is happening to species such as the grizzly bear.
This is also true of black bears. In many respects they are very gentle souls. They wander all over the streets of Jasper and Banff. They are a bit of a nuisance at times because they scrounge from garbage pails. However, they have some protection. When they wander along the road they are likely to be shot by someone travelling in a car. The purpose is merely to cater to that individual's desire to kill something.
The words contained in clause 9, which imply that action will be taken only when animals are in danger of extinction, should be changed. Action should be taken before that time in order to preserve our wildlife. Also, there should be research with regard to preserving wildlife species so they may grow and develop. There is a need for herds to enlarge. Such research should take into account not only biological questions which impinge upon propagation of the species, but harvesting for food and hunting for trophy purposes. I am not the least bit interested in supporting the idea of trophy hunting. In fact, I would like to see the federal and provincial governments promote the idea of people hunting with a camera instead of a gun. This would attract a different group of people from those with the killer instinct. I would like to see people preserve on film what they see, rather than having a moose head on the wall, collecting dust, to which a hunter can point with pride. In most cases these poor, defenceless animals are shot from a distance of great safety.
In addition to the biological question, research should involve the economic question. With regard to hunting, there are a number of guides who earn their living guiding people into hunting areas. They earn their living by showing others what wildlife is all about. This research should involve recreational forest areas in a way similar to what I was saying about cameras a moment ago. I do not think the concept of research being carried out entirely within the minister's department or in conjunction with the provinces will be satisfactory. It would be much more fruitful if grants were made to people outside the government service to do research in this field. I cannot think of a group of people who know more about wildlife and are more intimately involved than our native Indian people. They know what wildlife is all about.
In this area, I believe extremely useful research work could be done if we were to draw on the experience of our native Indians. Grants for research work might also be given to guides and trappers who live a large part of their lives in the bush in the same habitat as the animals we now seek to protect, as well as to wildlife foundations, rod and gun clubs and other groups which by their activities have shown concern for the wildlife of this land.

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
When the bill gets before the committee I hope it will not be rushed through. I hope an opportunity will be given for people whose lives are closely associated with nature and wildlife to make suggestions and representations for improving the measure, for making it function in a better way than is conceived from the point of view of the lawyers who drafted it or from the point of view of the minister who determined policy questions with regard to it. Legislation of this nature concerns itself with something beyond the normal comprehension of most of us in this House or, indeed, in our society today. We must draw on the knowledge, experience, feelings and understanding of those who of their own volition live a life which respects the wild creatures around them. If we do this, I am sure we can produce a measure which will be a credit to this land for a long time to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some brief remarks on Bill C-131, an act respecting wildlife in Canada. I realize that it is just enabling legislation, but there are several points affecting the prairie provinces which I think should be stressed at this time. Many of the points contained in the bill came out of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference which was held over ten years ago. I am glad the government has brought forward this legislation because it is long overdue. All Canadians wish to do everything possible to preserve our wildlife. Nobody appreciates wildlife more than people who live in the rural areas of Canada, because they live so close to nature.
One concern I have about this legislation is that no mention is made of the dollars for wetlands program. This program was introduced by the Progressive Conservative government in the early sixties and was established to encourage farmers in the prairie provinces not to drain sloughs and potholes on their farms. I felt it was a very effective program. As we are all aware, in the early 1960s grain sales were good and farmers wishing to increase production were trying to put as much of their land under cultivation as possible. This meant that many potholes and sloughs were being drained. The situation became so serious that water tables in many areas were affected. Not only did this occur, but as these sloughs and potholes were vast breeding grounds for the duck population in North America there was a distinct possibility that if the trend continued it could result in the extinction of the ducks.
The government of the day was aware of this possibility and introduced the dollars for wetlands program. Under the program the government paid an annual incentive to farmers who agreed not to drain their land. The farmer was compensated for loss of income incurred through not putting land into forage or grain production. The program was very effective when it was introduced. However, in 1969 and 1970 the government at that time decided, for some unknown reason, that there should be a cutback in the program. The cutback was in fact so severe that very few farmers participated. Another problem was that no change had been made in the amount of incentive paid to farmers since the program was introduced. We are all aware of the increases in costs to our farmers, and at that time we urged the government to double the incentive paid because their rates were out of date. But the govern-
ment would not listen. The irony of the situation is that in the year that we saw the biggest cutback by the government in the dollars for wetlands program, we also saw the introduction of the program known as Lift.
Here was a situation in which one department of government was paying the farmer not to grow wheat and encouraging him to take the land out of production, while at the same time another department of government was discontinuing a very effective program which was achieving the same result in addition to protecting the environment. This paradox was brought to the attention of the government, but in their arrogant way members opposite would not listen. I hope the dollars for wetlands program is completely reinstated and that farmers will be paid enough compensation to encourage them to leave their sloughs undrained. The area of Manitoba which I represent is one of Canada's largest duck breeding grounds. If these breeding grounds are to continue to exist, farmers will have to receive proper compensation. I know they are prepared to co-operate.
Ducks feeding on farmers' crops in the field present a very real and costly problem on the Prairies. This has been mentioned in the House many times. As a result, because of their heavy losses a number of farmers view the duck population with concern. The government has, it is true, taken some steps to ease this situation. Farmers are sometimes criticized for the position they take in this regard, but I can imagine how loudly any retail merchant would holler if birds were allowed to eat produce off his shelves. If wildlife is to be protected, farmers will have to receive sufficient compensation for damage to their crops. This is a "must" if the bill is to be effective.
One other point I should like to make concerns damage by wildlife to crops which have been left in swath during the winter due to poor harvest weather. Riding Mountain National Park is in my constituency. It is more than 1,200 square miles in area. Many farms border the park or are in its vicinity. If these farmers are obliged to leave crops out in swath for long, the damage done by wildlife from the park is almost unbelievable. When they complain about their losses either to the province or to the federal government, each level of government claims it has no responsibility. I hope the bill before us will see that proper compensation is paid to farmers for damage done to crops by wildlife.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the bill before us I should like to address my remarks in particular to clause 9 to which my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Howard) was referring a while ago. If I might make a suggestion in all humility to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), it would be that he consider looking at Bill C-165. My humility is, of course, increased as I note that this particular bill relates closely to a private member's bill submitted by myself for the consideration of the House. It is entitled "an act respecting the protection of endangered species." The material in that bill certainly relates closely to clause 9 of the bill we are presently studying. For the interest of the House I shall read the brief clause 9 of the bill before us. It is entitled "Endangered wildlife" and provides:
May 9, 1973

The minister may, in co-operation with one or more provincial governments having an interest therein, take such measures as he deems necessary for the protection of any species of non-domestic animal in danger of extinction.
I humbly submit, Mr. Speaker, that although the intention and the spirit of the clause are good, the clause is still a relatively weak one. As the expression often goes in this House, it is a provision without teeth. The only teeth that this provision would have are to be found in the mouths of the poor animals who are supposed to be protected. There are no specific provisions as to how action is to be taken. There is nothing in the clause about sanctions and there is, indeed, very little definition.
As a suggestion to the minister and to the committee I should like to put forward some distinctions and definitions which are contained in Bill C-165 which I think are more specific and useful. There is an attempt to define "endangered species" in this way:
-"endangered species" means any wild mammal, wild bird, amphibian or reptile which by regulation is declared by the minister to be threatened with extinction-
Further on there is a definition of that last phrase, "threatened with extinction":
-"threatened with extinction" means a species or subspecies which is either unlikely to continue to survive without special protective measures-
I think this underlines the point that the hon. member for Skeena was making so effectively.
-or occurs in such small numbers and/or in such a restricted or specialized habitat that it could easily disappear.
In other words, this kind of definition is, I think, more useful than the very general statement that is contained in the present bill and I think meets the kind of concern expressed by the hon. member for Skeena. However, it is not enough for us in Canada to think only of the wildlife of this country as isolated from the rest of the world. In this case as in so many others we must have an international approach to the concern we feel. It may be that practices followed in this country can have a nefarious effect on wildlife in other countries. In order to make my point 1 should like to read from an article that appeared in one of our daily newspapers this winter, from a United Press source. It is brief and reads as follows:
U.S. Attorney Robert Morse and Assistant Secretary of the Interior Nathaniel Reed said yesterday in Brooklyn federal court the largest ring of traffickers in illegal animal pelts ever uncovered had been smashed.
You might ask, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, what are illegal animal pelts? How would we define them as being illegal in this country? I suggest it would be difficult since we do not have a law in this country that defines trafficking in certain animal pelts as illegal. The article continues:
A major company which admitted $5 million worth of purchases and sales of threatened species, including ocelot, otter, leopard, cheetah, jaguar and puma, faces a $500,000 fine.
That is a fairly stiff fine. But the next paragraph is the one that should really startle us:
Reed-
That is to say, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Nathaniel Reed.
-said these illegal pelts are shipped to storehouses in Canada and
Wildlife Protection
Switzerland because these countries do not now prevent the purchase and sale of these skins.
It is rather nice to have some international attention, but there are some times when we get attention that we could do without. This is certainly one of those times. Canada and Switzerland are about the only two countries left in the North Atlantic world, as it were, which do not prevent by law trafficking in skins and pelts of endangered species. I wish this bill did have some more teeth in it particularly with this point in mind.
Referring again to Bill C-165, which I submit is a better defined document, it contains a provision regarding international concern in the objects of the bill. The bill states:
It is hereby declared that it is necessary to assist on an international and domestic level in the preservation of species threatened with extinction and that there is illegal traffic on an international and national scale of skins of wild mammals, wild birds, amphibians and reptiles which threatens the survival of many rare species.
Again we have the balancing effect of supply and demand here: if we can cut off the supply, we will stop the demand-effectively. But as long as Canada remains a warehouse for this kind of trafficking it will always be possible for traffickers, whose trade is illegal in other countries such as the United States, to come to this country and set up operation. For this I do not think we should hold up our heads with too much pride.
I know I keep quoting from Bill C-165, Mr. Speaker, but there is this provision in the bill which is quite specific:
The minister
(a)	shall determine to the extent possible through consultation with foreign countries, interested persons and organizations what species and/or subspecies are threatened with extinction either on a worldwide basis or a habitat basis; and
(b)	may seek the advice and assistance of scientific organizations and specialists in the fields of zoology, ornithology, and herpetology, without restricting the range of advice and assistance to the said scientific fields.
Then in the operative part of the bill there is the provision that no person shall sell, purchase, store or import into Canada the skin of any endangered species. I think many members of this chamber would have more confidence in Bill C-131 if clause 9 contained provisions of the kind I have just cited from Bill C-165, where there is clear instruction as to how the minister is to proceed, what advice he is to seek, on what basis he may declare a species an endangered species, and there is a clear prohibition against the sale, trading, warehousing, exporting or dealing in the skins and pelts of endangered species. Then beyond the prohibition there is the calling for a sanction as follows:
Any person violating any provision of this act or any regulation is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable for each offence to a fine of five thousand dollars and imprisonment to a term not exceeding five years or to both.
Put this kind of provision in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and obviously you will have teeth in it. Left as it is, I think clause 9 will do very little other than express finer sentiments. It does very little more than give vent to our feelings, offering no real likelihood of any effective action being taken.
It is very rarely in this House that we debate the interpretation part of a bill, but I should like to suggest
3582

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
that some of the interpretative material in Bill C-131 is rather vague. In the interpretation clause, clause 2, it says that "wildlife" means any non-domestic animal. I suppose the obverse is true and that any domestic animal is one which is non-wildlife. You have a definition here which with its counterpart is, of course, completely tautological. It is comprehensive but it is not very deprecative. There are certain species that clearly fall either within one of these categories or within another of these categories.


Mr. Rose:: The horse.


John Paul Harney: I hear my colleague from Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) exclaim from his bench, "The horse". In Canada we have domestic and wild horses, and there have been recent cases in the handling of horses both wild and domestic for export which should cause us to bow our heads in justifiable shame. Some time ago-I forget exactly when, but well over a year-the Department of Transport did inaugurate a fairly good code for shipboard transportation of horses. Members of this House may not be aware that horses are shipped live out of this country, ostensibly, in many cases, for the purpose of breeding and rearing in Europe, and in other cases for the purpose of slaughter. I understand that the code does stipulate in part that horses over II years of age may not be shipped out of the country for the purpose of slaughter.
Several societies concerned with the humane treatment of animals looked into these shipments and came away rather alarmed at the way these animals are treated on shipboard. It is obvious to anyone who looks into the situation that horses are shipped to Europe, there to be slaughtered and their flesh to be served on the tables of Europeans. If those people want to eat horse meat, I suppose that is their business. What we should be concerned with in this country is the situation when these animals are shipped out of Canada for this purpose.
I would take a much more simple approach to the matter, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that no horses should be shipped live out of this country for the purpose of slaughter overseas. Then we would know absolutely that these animals would be killed humanely here and that our handling of them would be sound and humane. No matter how well we supervise this-and I doubt that we do or can supervise it well-I do not suppose we will ever be able to assure ourselves that these animals are humanely treated once they have left the port of Montreal or Halifax and are on a ship somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.
Horses can fall ill and die, and horses that are too old obviously cannot suffer the sea passage safely. Some horses may have foals that are too young to be treated in this fashion. Others simply have not been trained and are not sufficiently docile. Many horses have been reported to have been treated most inhumanely during shipment. Perhaps when we review this bill in committee we can consider the rather vague definition of "wildlife" and expand the bill to the consideration of this kind of situation.
Someone might tell me that my intervention is a little out of order, but I know there have been allegations made to the effect that wild horses from Alberta have been shipped to Europe under these conditions. If we want to

take that very sound view and make that distinction between wild and domestic animals, we should at least take steps to prevent this kind of inhumane treatment.
Let me end by saying there is something very biblical about this event. The expressed concern on the part of the government and hon. members of this House for the wellbeing of animals is something which dates back to the very beginning of biblical times. According to the first book of Genesis we were put on this earth to tend the garden, and we were expected to tend this garden with respect. In a very significant way, the manner in which we deal with the creatures with which we share this earth is a reflection upon ourselves. If I may interpret, as indeed has been done many times before, the first verse of Genesis, the first thing that Adam did was to name the animals. I suppose this is what the minister proposes we now do in a modern way. We are not going to name them, we are going to research them. Let us hope that our research goes beyond the mere expression of idle curiosity and becomes an expression of our concern for our fellow creatures on this earth.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this bill, and I congratulate the minister for bringing it in. In dealing with wildlife in Canada the bill covers many things. It provides for agreements with the governments of the provinces, so it covers provincial, municipal and township matters. It deals with organizations or persons associated with wildlife research. I think this is a very important matter as we are always faced with problems of research, particularly in the area of our wildlife kingdom. It deals with payments and contributions in respect of the cost of measures resulting therefrom, and provides for the purchase, acquisition or lease of lands. It also provides for the costs incurred in administration of the legislation to be paid out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament, and relates to other matters in connection with the administration of this legislation. I think this is a very good measure in that it deals with these aspects and covers a tremendous area of the country.
We all know what happens if we do not maintain the balance of wildlife in this country. We are also aware of the disappearance of many species of wildlife. We know there is a great deal of importance in maintaining this balance of life. I have in mind the fact that the wolf population in the northland kills the crippled, the lame, the halt and the blind of our caribou and deer populations. These animals would encounter untold suffering if it were not for wolves killing them humanely and mercifully. I think the ecology of the north would be very much upset, particularly in the Northwest Territories, if we did not have wolves to kill off the mice. Mice destroy all kinds of vegetation in that country. The same applies to foxes and rabbits, and one might include in that chain hawks who live on mice and other small animals, and other carnivorous species.
I should like to refer to an article which goes back to the 1950s when the Dutch elm disease threatened some of the trees which line the streets of many mid-western towns. In 1954, Michigan State University, which has a large number of elms on its East Lansing campus, began to spray with DDT to kill the beetles that spread the disease. The beetles began to die, but so did a large number of
May 9, 1973

robins. Soon zoologists discovered that earthworms ate the DDT-covered leaves that fell to the ground, the worms in turn were eaten by the robins, causing them to die of nerve poisoning. This example covers three species and stages in the ecological chain.
Michigan State's experience is a demonstration of the phenomenon known as biological magnification. While the DDT concentration in one area may be microscopically low, it can multiply through the food chain. Several birds along the Great Lakes, including the American eagle, were threatened with extinction because of the use of DDT, because DDT causes the liver to produce enzymes that attack the hormones governing the production of calcium. I should like to quote the following from the Globe and Mail of July 7, 1969:
When the eagle's system produces less calcium, the eggshells become thinner, causing more frequent breakage and fewer baby eagles.
The osprey, peregrine falcon and mallard duck have problems similar to those of the eagle. And the Minks Ranchers Association believes that DDT may be affecting mink reproduction.
I think this covers quite a field, and it goes to show how we can destroy wildlife by using controls such as pesticides. The article goes on to read:
Humans seem to eliminate DDT once it reaches a level of 10 or 12 parts per million. (Most North Americans apparently have that level in their bodies).
Experiments' in feeding prisoners massive DDT doses have uncovered no measurable dangers-
But in treating mice they did run into problems which showed that it might be harmful. The experiments also indicated that DDT might interfere with the productivity of wildlife.
I want to congratulate wildlife groups, people in fish and game clubs and rod and gun clubs for the part they have played. In my area there are such clubs, particularly fish and game clubs and conservation clubs, that have done very useful work. They have bought up land here and there and have stocked it with wild animals and birds. These animals and birds are multiplying under these normal conditions, just as if they were free. It is a beautiful sight to see these animals and birds, some of which are being released into the woods because of overpopulation. I cannot stress sufficiently the important part these organizations have played in building such sanctuaries. They have aroused public opinion, which is very important. Public opinion has been aroused on the very subject that the minister has been smart enough to put into legislation and bring before the House.
I want to refer for a minute or two to the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart) who commented very ably on the wetlands and how they could be used. The same thing applies to Ontario, where we could protect our bush and similar areas that are unfit for agriculture but would make excellent havens for wildlife. The other day I was in the bush, a woodlot of about 200 acres. There were deer there, bears, raccoons and beavers; a stream goes through the lot. This was very interesting to me. Here was preservation of animals by people, without any compulsion at all. They did it because they like to protect the wildlife of the country.
Wildlife Protection
I would also like to refer to the comments of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) who dealt with the problem of wild and tame horses. This is certainly a problem that affects us all, and it probably distresses a good many people when horses are caught and shipped abroad. Many times they are injured on the way, and a few times they have had colts during shipment. One such case was reported to me, and when one case is reported there are usually many others. This matter could be taken care of by the federal branch dealing with the health of animals. As is the case when any type of thoroughbred or other animal is shipped out of the country, a health certificate should be required for the animal. Regulations could be brought in barring any animals from being shipped overseas that were not going there for breeding purposes. It is as simple as that. If there happened to be too many wild horses, they could be slaughtered, frozen and then shipped. Let us not do this by the back door in an underhand way. Let us be fair and honest in our approach to the problems connected with wild horses and wildlife.
In conclusion, I want to congratulate the minister. I know that he will have the support of all members of the House on his progressive legislation.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on second reading of this bill. It is perhaps one of the few bills that will receive unanimous agreement from all sides of the House and from all the public. If there are any misgivings, they would only be that the bill does not go far enough and is not sufficiently extensive to satisfy many people.
In his speech the minister gave a good resume of what the bill hopes to accomplish. I think the public is becoming increasingly aware of what only a few generations ago only the conservationist was aware of, namely, that man as a species of animal himself must be increasingly aware of the fact that he is limited by many of the boundaries of nature within which other animal species are restricted, and that he is finding the same peripheries to his activities that nature applies to other animals.
The multiplication of a new species creates a new balance. This seems to have been true since the world began. Rather belatedly, the human species is realizing that the preservation of many animals is desirable and even necessary for our survival. Of course, we have our domesticated animals which have come from the wilds, but as well there are many other animals that are not domesticated, and we desire to have them protected. In North America, for instance, the deer population was at an all-time low around the 1900s, but through wise management it is now in substantially greater numbers than previously and there are no signs of their dying out. It is now obvious that most animal life and bird life on this continent can be preserved, and may even thrive, if man would only apply some relatively minor and modest measures of control. However, these are rather meagre.
A few years ago, when I first came to the House in 1968, I asked what research was available on upland game birds in the prairie provinces, Unfortunately, I found that very little research material was available and I was referred to research material accumulated by the Americans in the Dakotas and Montana. But even in that area the American research was quite meagre. For my own interest I was able
3584

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
to procure some native varieties of seedling plantings for birds from the government station at Indian Head, and I believe that the government officials in the dominion nursery there have made a creditable start in this area. They are to be congratulated for having made a start in finding suitable plantings which will sustain game bird populations in the prairie area.
The problem with wildlife programs at both the federal and provincial levels has been the apparent lack of continuity of the programs once a project was under way. For instance, the government had a program of poghole preservation in western Manitoba which fell afoul of the government's austerity measures in 1969. The farmers at that time, since they had an excess of grain on hand, were glad to preserve some of the potholes for waterfowl preservation because of the income involved from the leasing; but at this time when grain is not so abundant-it is in short supply and it can all be sold-it will be more difficult to convince farmers to set them aside and leave them as a sluice for waterfowl preservation.
I would like to say that although the setting aside of selected areas as refuges has a good deal of advantage, I think that for the preservation of wildlife this should be done throughout the whole of the country, interspersed with farms, agricultural units, and so on. To do this we need the co-operation of the provincial and federal governments but, most importantly, we need the co-operation of rural councils. Speaking of my own area, there will not be much progress there unless the co-operation of rural councils is enlisted. Their help will have to be planned in the matter of restrictions, easements, perhaps direct tax relief measures, etc., which will have to be agreed upon in order that a suitable habitat for wildlife may be made available. It is quite true that a relatively small effort to maintain these habitats will be necessary to support a substantial wildlife population.
I am always amazed at the statement that the English countryside sustains a higher population of wild animals per square mile than any other country in the world. In Canada, and in the prairie provinces especially, with the severe winters wildlife population may not be extremely high but there is no doubt that with proper management surprisingly good results could be anticipated.
There is a problem in my area, which I think would be prevalent in many other areas, regarding hunting rights of the native people. Tensions are heightening between the Indian people and the rural communities surrounding reserves over the question of all-year hunting and what is considered a particularly unsportsmanlike method of hunting, night-lighting, by Indians on private property. Although Indians have a right to hunt during the year on reservations or on Crown land, there is actually little Crown land available, so that most hunting is done on private property. The original purpose of allow'ng Indians to hunt for food has long since lost its validity in the southern parts of the country, as all the game available could provide only a slight amount of food for the Indian population.
The double standard of having some people able to hunt all year round while others cannot hunt at all, particularly

when hunting is carried out on private land, has caused intense animosity in my area between the Indian people and the surrounding farm population and sportsmen. It is wisely pointed out that all the violations of night-lighting, and so on, are not caused by the Indians. Of course, the problem is complicated by the fact that the preservation of wildlife is under provincial jurisdiction. While the treaties which guarantee the Indians their right to hunt were made by the federal authority, up to the present time there has been no obvious attempt made by either the federal or provincial authorities to sort out this delicate problem.
It is a problem that will have to be solved. I urge the minister to have his department study this problem as well as having the Department of Indian Affairs study it so that meaningful discussions with the provinces and with the Indian bands themselves will lead to some kind of solution. Otherwise, I am afraid that the animosity may lead to violent solutions that we will all regret, and that will endanger the working out of satisfactory relationships between the Indians and their rural neighbours. This may not be a very widespread problem but it is a severe one. It goes to the root of the original treaties and also to the root of the enforcement of provincial game laws. I congratulate the minister on this bill and I wish its purpose success.


Mr. Mark  Hose@Fraser Valley West: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in the discussion on Bill C-131. Perhaps my initial observation will be similar to that of others who suggested that this is umbrella legislation. One of the problems with umbrella legislation is that it tends to be full of holes, in that it allows a minister to do a great deal or to do virtually nothing.
I realize that the problem of wildlife protection, management and enhancement in Canada is fraught with certain difficulties which are largely jurisdictional, and even with the best will in the world the federal government would have to seek the co-operation of provinces and municipalities before it could achieve its objectives. I also think that the matter of the regulations to flow from this bill is of major concern. Because of the very general nature of the bill, it seems to me that the regulations will determine whether or not Bill C-131 is to be effective or just window-dressing.
Without those regulations, or knowledge of them, we really cannot draw too many conclusions about this legislation, except that it is a statement of fine intentions. This is a continuing problem with a great deal of legislation presented to this House. I recall that a couple of years ago, when we were discussing the problem of protection of the boreal ecology with respect to the Yukon mineral bill, until we were sure which set of regulations would be accepted we in parliament were in a very poor position to make any intelligent comment on the nature, scope and possible effectiveness of that bill, and so with many other pieces of legislation. But in saying that, I think we can be pleased that we have this legislation before us, of course recognizing the limitations and also recognizing the fact that it is really up to the minister or the government to determine how much effect this will have in preserving and enhancing the kind of natural wildlife which abounds in Canada.
May 9, 1973

It is interesting, I think, that wildlife legislation took so long to arrive at the federal level. I believe it is here now because of a growing concern over and a recognition of the fact that we as men, as humans, are really "part of" rather than "apart from" the whole ecology of this planet. We have too long stood above the planet as its masters, but now we find that our mastery has not really been very masterful. We, like the animals, are part of the whole ecosystem, and man's transgressions are the most threatening to it.
About 20 years ago the standard text for general science in British Columbia was called "Mastering our Environment." I doubt whether a text with that title would ever find its way into the school system today because our whole attitude with respect to man's relationship to the environment has changed, perhaps due to the pioneering efforts of people such as Jack Miner dealing with birds, Grey Owl dealing with beavers and of writers who published interesting outdoor stories. Today more and more people are recognizing the validity of preserving the often limited and definitive parameters or boundaries of what survives in terms of wildlife, not only animal life but plant and marine life.
I do not intend to go into great detail in a clause by clause review of this bill. As I said earlier, I feel the bill is very general and that it is really up to the minister to determine what flows from it. Whether or not it is used to the benefit and preservation of wildlife really rests with the minister and his government. I would like to note-I will list some things in a moment and perhaps discuss them in detail later-some of the threats to wildlife which I think have brought us to the point where we must now consider this preservation legislation. The first thing we have to consider-and this is largely, by the way, centred around modern man-is the destruction that development of all kinds causes to wildlife. There is also the destruction of predators, which in turn destroys the food chain. There is the suffering and destruction due to the various kinds of savage traps that we use to catch animals. There is the destruction of animal life caused by chemical pollutants, herbicides, pesticides and various waste products. There is the destruction caused by government department ignoring another government department. I will amplify this later. Finally, the destruction of animals, both lethal and sublethal, having to do with the reproductive capacities of those animals, birds and fishes which is due to radioactive fall-out.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather pointless for us to be considering this legislation at all if we do not take a long strong stand on matters such as technological development, chemical and nuclear pollution and the ignorance of one government department compared to another. Unless we take all these things into consideration, we are only uttering a lot of fine sentiments and the result will be gradual extinction of more and more species. I have heard it said that we are losing one species of animal per year in the world. This figure is nothing for human beings to be proud of.
In British Columbia we have examples of destruction due to developments such as the Roberts Bank coal port. The bulk loading facility happened to be set in the only
Wildlife Protection
Mediterranean marine climate that exists in British Columbia. Many people opposed that port because of its situation within to marinetide flats and wetlands which is where the life of the sea starts. Any further depradation of this limited and unique Mediterranean marine area in Canada would be a definite loss not only for recreation but for those forms of marine and fish life that depend upon such areas to reproduce. This includes shellfish and other types of commercial fish.
I am pleased that now when we consider the construction of coal ports and such things as airports, we first embark upon environmental studies. I do not know how sophisticated these studies are, but at least greater consideration is being given to the environmental impact. No explicit references to environmental studies for annual protection before embarking on major developments are to be found in this bill. Another thing that concerns many B.C. people is the possibility that the mudflats east of the Second Narrows bridge on Burrard Inlet may be destroyed for the development of port facilities. I would oppose any such move because I believe we should try to preserve mudflats for the reasons I have mentioned in connection with Roberts Bank.
There have also been doubts about the development of the Mackenzie valley. I have in my file some material from the Canadian Wildlife Federation which came to me a couple of years ago when I was speaking about the Yukon Minerals Act. At that time we were as concerned about exploration and development by mining companies as we are today about the development of oil pipelines. In the winter, 1971, issue of Wildlife News appears the following comment:
Statements made recently in the House of Commons imply that the Canadian Wildlife Service is actively involved in research on the effects of pipelines on ecology in general and on wildlife in particular. Except for an inventory of sensitive wildlife areas, and a general reconnaissance of the types of damage being done by oil exploration-
And coming to the operative part of the statement, Mr. Speaker.
-the Canadian Wildlife Service has neither undertaken research of the type implied nor does it have funds for such research during the forthcoming year.
I hope the minister can tell us that is no longer true, or else everything contained in Bill C-131 is nonsense. Lack of funding reminds me of the Canada Water Act which was to provide the establishment of river basin boards. To my knowledge none has been set up, mainly because there was no provision for funds to cover them. It is all very well to have research into sensitive ecological matters, but if funds are denied we might as well forget the subject. There are some other interesting comments in the Wildlife Federation leaflet which bear not only on the attitudes of Canadians but also on North American or western European values. On page 2 appears the following:
But, as the Canadian Wildlife Federation points out in its current National Wildlife Week program, the earth is not without its limits-limits which we have known for several centuries. We have long since "conquered" the wilderness and "subdued" the last inhabitable frontiers. Our technology exploits forms of energy which gives to each of us power equivalent to hundreds of times the impact on our environment. The wastes and even the products of our rapidly growing, diversifying technology are too often released into the biosphere to upset the eons-old balance of natural systems.

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
In other words, the Canadian Wildlife Service, a branch of government, is complaining that we are using the air as a sewer. We are. If we continue to do this it is bound to have a much more pernicious effect on our animal life than we can overcome by setting up any reserve for the resting of wild ducks. There exists the larger question which is important and one which goes beyond this legislation. I should like to read one more paragraph from this excellent bulletin because it relates to the larger question:
Clearly, our devotion to the growth ethos, the outmoded conventional wisdom that proclaims "bigger" to be "better", has been too complete for too long. Now that bigger populations, more products and by-products of technology, greater use of resources and proliferation of wastes are lowering the quality of our lives-perhaps even threatening our survival-it is surely time to make intelligent choices which, at best, may preserve a reasonable quality of life and, at worst, will avoid disaster for our species.
I think it is implied here that our species are inextricably linked with all other species on this planet. Perhaps I have said enough about that, but it reflects the attitude of many people and I am sure that in the main, though perhaps not completely, it reflects the attitude of the minister.
The next point is the destruction of predators which in turn destroy our food chain. For too long we have been chasing "the big bad wolf"-we allow the rodent to multiply, and so the whole ecosystem gets out of balance. A lady from my riding has written to me on this general topic and I should like to quote from her letter. She writes:
Our wildlife plays a vital part in our ecosystem-all wildlife- even the predators, that hunters and stockmen would have us believe are an "extra entity!" But then "self-interest" tends to make one's views a bit biased, wouldn't you say? Or to carry the thought further "man is the extra in the ecosystem!" He contributes little and feels justified in taking all he can get at the expense, in many instances, of the environment. The destruction of predators (so-called) is the irreversible first step toward destruction of land and the ecosystem. As the predators disappear, the rodents increase; as the rodents devour the roots of the grasses, the grass cover dies-causing erosion. With the destruction of the natural growth of grass cover, the so-called noxious plants take over-productive land becomes a desert!
From recent information we know that because of overgrazing, poor management practices and perhaps even a change in climate, the Sahara desert is growing by one mile per year and it could conceivably cover a huge portion of Africa in our lifetime. From our biblical studies we know, too, that the Holy Land was once a very lush and productive place but because of malpractice and lack of concern for environment we see what some areas have degenerated into.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I have said enough about the destruction of predators and how we have been blind to the necessity of maintaining a balanced ecosystem in our world. We can see what happens if you shoot the coyote, as the shooting of the coyote and his relatives meant that there were far more gophers who ate our grain and, consequently, caused a great deal of erosion, creating a potential wasteland where no life survives.
I should like to speak now for a moment about the destruction and suffering due to the savage and cruel trapping methods employed in Canada. I am not scorning those people, such as native peoples and others, who trap

for a living. What many do not know is that perhaps half the leg-hold traps are sold in urban areas are for catching pigeons, cats and other kinds of bothersome creatures around the city. It may be interesting to note that in the last few months there has been established an all-party, House of Commons animal welfare committee, the establishment of which was prompted by the efforts of Mr. Tom Hughes of the Animal Welfare Foundation. The committee has met once informally and will probably meet again. It is attempting to deal in a rational and reasonable way with the welfare of animals. At the moment the committee is chaired by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) and, if it is successful in its endeavours, we hope that our work will lead to the development of a more healthy approach toward animals generally, and specifically help to stamp out the cruelty which is involved in the use of the leg-hold trap.
Especially since a number of grisly television documentaries on this subject were aired, interest in more human trapping methods has been growing. A class of school children from Port Coquitlam in my province wrote to me about this matter some weeks ago. They say:
We, the grade seven students of Irvine Elementary protest the use of leg-trapping of animals. Our class had a discussion on this subject and found there is another way such as the Conibear trap which kills instantly. Why couldn't the trappers use it?
The letter is signed by the students of that class. It seems to me that if students like those are beginning to realize what is happening, recognize the cruelty involved and display that sort of sensitivity and concern toward animals so that there may be safer and a more humane approach to their slaughter, if their slaughter is necessary, it bodes well for us, as does this legislation. After all, these children will be our future decision-makers.
This legislation is a reflection not only on the minister but on the times in which we live. I do not think the children are quite accurate in their assessment of traps. The Conibear trap, the supposed substitute for the leg-hold trap, does not meet all the necessary conditions entirely. It does not quite meet the ideal of being a perfect trap. I do not suggest that people who depend for their livelihood on the leg-hold trap should be denied its use until another one is developed, but the leg-hold trap should be sold to bona fide trappers only and kept out of the city.
Certainly, if there are to be grants and awards under this legislation the minister should consider, as a first priority, awarding grants for the development of a more humane kind of trap to be used on wild animals. A good place to start would be with the Conibear trap. In any event, whether it is important or not, I wanted to say it because many people whom I represent would want me to say it, as they are concerned about this subject.
I should like now to deal for a moment with the destruction caused by chemical pollutants such as the various herbicides, insecticides and various waste products that flow from our technological society. I reiterate, there is not much point in dealing with the lack of resting spots for the wild goose if we do not at the same time deal with pollutants. So long as we continue to pollute ourselves and our world, what is the point of a bill that encourages research into this and that, and will establish some sort of
May 9, 1973

resting place, in co-operation with the provinces, for geese? There is no point to it.
Take the matter of herbicides. We use phenoxy herbicides. Chemicals such as 24D, 245T, 245TP, Mecoprop, and so on, contain some of the chemical female hormones in addition to chlorinated hydrocarbons. Some of these chemicals have been around for years; others have been used most recently as defoliants in the Viet Nam war. Canada joined 58 other nations to secure the ban of these defoliants because they are dangerous, not just because they take leaves off trees in Viet Nam but because they are dangerous to humans and animals. Canada, along with 58 other nations of the United Nations asked for these chemicals to be banned. At the same time, although Canada has asked for these phenoxy herbicides to be banned in Viet Nam, our Canadian Department of Agriculture has authorized their use in Canada.
What do these chemicals do, Mr. Speaker? I am told that they are capable of causing bronchitis, myocardial damage, kidney and liver damage, neuritis, fatigue, depression, nervousness, headaches, disturbed sleep, attacks of giddiness, muscular aches and pains, edema, disturbances in memory, loss of weight, disturbances in concentration, uncontrollable bleeding involving the eyes, nose and other body openings and internal organs, cancer and deformed babies. The fumes can be as deadly when ingested. But, unbelievably, our Department of Agriculture authorizes the use of these chemicals in Canada.
If those chemicals used in Viet Nam are so thoroughly damaging to humans in the manner I have just outlined, what on earth will they do to animals? The damage caused by chemicals like these will far more than offset any benefit that may accrue to animals as a result of this legislation unless we are concurrently prepared to deal with that pollution. I hope the minister and his department will deal with them. Certainly, he ought to interest the Minister of Agriculture in reviewing his authorization of these chemicals. That is part of his job. If he does not do that, then this legislation is just so much tokenistic nonsense.
Consider for a moment what has happened in Texas. May I read an excerpt from a letter written by a lawyer in New Mexico who has this to say about the effects of certain chemicals:
Shortly after the spraying, the cattle of both of my clients began dying. The remaining cattle are emaciated and do not gain any weight although they are being fed in excess of the normal food ration. Calves have been aborted by mother cows; and, those calves that have been born alive since the spraying are only the size of large dogs.
If sprays can do that to domestic animals, what can they do to wild animals? The use of these chemicals has escalated because of continued tax-free pressure by the chemical lobby and various other lobbies. When we use these chemicals we remove one source of trouble and cause others. We are attempting to control one kind of horror with the use of another horror, and this will have to stop.
What about the case of the plastic waste in England which caused the shells of gulls' egg to become much thinner and severely limit reproductive capacity of these gulls? If these things continue to happen and We take no steps to control them, we shall be in great difficulty. What
Wildlife Protection
about the mercury in fish? What about pulp mill pollution in British Columbia? For years I have been trying to obtain from the minister his records of monitoring pulp mill effluent of the Fraser River, a very important part of our salmon resource, but with no success. And here the minister comes in with a bill that, as he says, will save the animals. It is difficult to reconcile those words with his past actions.
Also, let us consider the destruction caused by one department of government to wildlife as a result of ignoring the aims of another department of government. This week I received a request for an extension of a LIP project. That project is six weeks late. I suppose the LIP project could be made fun of and satirized. However, a number of people are devoted to building artificial nests around Pitt Lake for wood ducks an endangered species. Funds for the project came late and an extension was requested. If no extension is approved, the project will be eliminated or those involved will have to pay for it out of their own funds.
This is a case where the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), in consultation with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), who is in charge of I.IP funds, can make certain this project goes ahead. I am pleased to see the Minister of Manpower in his place because I have not yet made a personal representation to him on this subject. However, I have made representations to his department for an extension because this project deals with an endangered species. At the moment the project is in jeopardy, as is the species. One department of government must co-operate and communicate with the others. It is essential. Let me give another example which I mentioned earlier. Through the United Nations, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) asked for a ban on herbicides in Viet Nam. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) allows this same product to be used in Canada. That is a contradiction I find hard to reconcile.
There is another matter of interest. The Department of Transport authorized that a part of Pitt Meadows in my constituency be used as a helicopter practice range. This is precisely over the nesting area of an endangered species known as the sandhill crane. There are now only three or four pairs left in the area. When the sandhill crane is nesting, the helicopters disturb them and they fly away from their nests.
The concluding item on my list of destruction of wild animals and wildlife in general is the destruction caused by radioactive fall-out. There are both lethal and sublethal effects. I do not think anyone realizes the extent of genetic damage caused by this. This is one reason why since coming to this House I have been doing everything I can to discourage the obscenities of further nuclear testing whether underground or on the water. I do not think people realize the amount of radiation pollution we have been ingesting since World War II. I have a paper which was prepared by Professor Gordon Edwards, department of mathematics, University of British Columbia. I will read from it briefly. I would like to make it as interesting as possible, which is a difficult thing when quoting. It reads;

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
During the atmospheric testing of the 1950s, the AEC predicted (correctly) that much less fallout would reach the ground in arctic regions than in temporate regions of the United States. They concluded (incorrectly) that Eskimos would not be in danger of accumulating dangerous amounts of fallout. They didn't know that food chains can behave in peculiar ways. Lichens . . . have no functional roots, and often grow on rocks rather than soil. They absorb their mineral nutrition in the form of dust taken directly from the air. As a result they absorb radioactive fallout directly, without the dilution and discrimination processes which operate when fallout is absorbed through roots. Caribou eat great quantities of lichen (many times their own body weight) and therefore take up excessive amounts of radiation from fallout. At the end of the food chain, caribou meat makes up a substantive portion of the Eskimo's diet, producing the unexpectedly large amounts of fallout radiation in their bodies.
This is not only true in the Arctic. It applies to milk and other products. There are dozens of other examples. If radiation is a threat to humans, it naturally follows that there exists a threat to animals. The government has to move in the direction to grapple effectively with radiation. Unless they do, the sentiments expressed in this piece of legislation will fall far short of reality.
Someone called this a motherhood bill. I think that is a bit cruel. Bill C-131 at least recognizes the problem of endangered species and does so for the first time. In British Columbia some wags may take the term "endangered species" to mean the Liberal party. Nevertheless, my party intends to support this bill. The bill, however, makes little mention of the points I have raised and seems to be deficient in explicit power to prevent abuses. Before setting down I also would like to congratulate the rod and gun clubs as well as groups such as SPEC and the Coquitlam River Committee for bringing the nature of the problems directly to the attention of legislators. Without the private interest groups and environmental groups there would certainly have been less motivation to have wildlife legislation considered during this session.
I will try not to be cynical, but I wonder what impact this bill will have on the massive environmental rape known as the James Bay project. How will this bill protect the animals in that area? If the minister will excuse me for accusing him for being a bit lethargic on the matter of the Skagit, I wonder how it would have helped the animals in the Skagit valley. How would this bill have helped predict the difficulties associated with the Bennett Dam in the Athabasca basin?
These are extremely important matters since wildlife protection does not deal with single issues. They are broad and comprehensive. They are not just limited to wildlife. Our reactions are determined by the attitudes and traditions we have. It is about time we changed some of them. I do not want to appear unduly sanctimonous, but we are all products of the habits of how we have been raised. Talking and reading about new attitudes and new realities is how they gain general acceptance.
In conclusion, possibly the House might consider the private member's bill of my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney), Bill C-165 which, as he stated, broadens the definition of "endangered species." With the minister's co-operation, possibly Bill C-185 might be sent to the committee at the same time as Bill C-131.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on this bill. I congratulate the minister for bringing it forward. I hope some real action will flow from it.


Hon. Walter G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the debate that has resulted from the presentation of Bill C-131 has been largely a ritualistic exercise. I do not think anyone is going to oppose this bill because the principles it espouses, the wise management and possible use of renewable resources, has long been accepted by the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments and the people of Canada. Indeed, I feel that the people of Canada are ahead of governments in this regard. It is only by continuing pressure that we now have harmonized in the bill before the House these principles vital to the preservation and conservation of our renewable resources.
My contribution this afternoon will be brief. I do not intend to outline a grandiose policy of wildlife management. I do wish, however, to pay tribute to some of the pioneers whose efforts have made this bill possible. We have just come through National Wildlife Week which occurs annually during the early part of April. I am sure all members will be aware that it is a tribute to the pioneering work of Jack Miner who founded one of the first migratory wildfowl sanctuaries in the southern part of Ontario. This parliament eventually recognized the pioneering work of the Miner sanctuary and passed legislation which made the annual observance possible.
In addition, I should like to refer to the Resources for Tomorrow Conference of 1961 which I think was a high-water mark in the emergence of the legislation now before the House. As the minister told us in his opening remarks, one of the resolutions which came out of that conference urged upon governments, particularly at the provincial and federal levels, the passing of wildlife legislation which would attempt to deal with problems which had already been defined. One of the pioneers in this effort was the Canadian Wildlife Service itself. Canada has been well served by this branch of government and some of the men who have served as directors of the department over the years must be mentioned as largely responsible for the legislation before us today. I shall not mention any names. I shall simply indicate that during the past two or three decades the directors of that department have called attention in season and out of season to the necessity for legislative action to ensure that wildlife, as part of our renewable resources, is wisely managed.
The Resources for Tomorrow Conference also led to the establishment of a resource ministers' council. It is my opinion that there is lack of appreciation of the role this council has played and can play in its important responsibility of co-ordinating wise management measures in all areas affecting renewable resources. For example, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), speaking in the debate last night, as reported at page 3543 of Hansard, referred to the effort which he says he has made many times in the House to bring about the establishment of an environmental council wholly independent of government and entrusted with reporting on environmental problems throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, we already have such a council-the resource ministers' council which brings together annually, and more frequently if necessary, all the provincial ministers across the country in council with the federal
May 9, 1973_________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________ 3589
minister so that they may achieve some measure of coordination in an area where it is most difficult to achieve co-operation because of the constitutional jurisdictional problem. The headquarters of the council were deliberately established outside the city of Ottawa so there would be no suspicion of any direct connection with government at any level. The council operates out of Montreal. It has a highly qualified secretariat and its function is to do exactly what the hon. member for Kootenay West is apparently advocating.
So the council already exists, and the fact that a Member of Parliament is not aware of it indicates that it has hardly been given the prominence that its important responsibilities deserve. It was in 1965 that this council passed a resolution reinforcing the resolution which came out of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference of 1961 urging legislative action to carry out the responsibilities of wise management of Canadian wildlife resources. We should pay tribute here this afternoon to those who have pioneered in the resources ministers' council and who perhaps have not received the measure of support which the importance of their work merits and who, in particular, have not received the financial support necessary if we are to achieve positive results under this program.
Another emanation of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference was the Canadian Wildlife Federation. That body was born from the conference. It was hailed at the time as one of the important achievements of the conference. The federation brought together the fish and game associations across the country and it has, I believe, been one of the major influences in urging governments at all levels to act in making possible the production of the legislation now before the House.
We all realize that legislation of itself will not achieve positive results unless there is initiative and action on the part of all governments. This follows from the jurisdictional problem to which I have already referred, one which makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to get action in the area of policies affecting conservation. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), who spoke just before me, outlined programs and policies which he said might be activated by the federal government. The federal government can activate nothing unless it gets the co-operation of the provinces, hence the importance of the resource ministers' council. I feel the provinces are ahead of the federal government in this regard.
I am reminded, for example, that the resource minister for Quebec who served on a committee of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference in 1961 was a politician by the name of Rene Levesque. Perhaps he might have become more closely associated with matters of national unity had there not been so much delay in implementing the resolution of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference in this respect.


Mr. Davis:: Judging from one of his speeches, he was a separatist then.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, I was there. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has suggested that Mr. Levesque was operating as a separatist even at the
Wildlife Protection
Resources for Tomorrow Conference. I would remind him that the chairing of the resource ministers' council operated on the rotating principle. After the federal minister, which was myself at the time, the first chairman of the general council was Mr. Spooner, who was then minister of resources for Ontario. His successor was the Hon. Rene Levesque, who was minister of resources for the province of Quebec. He was willing to preside over the intergovernmental body that had been created to get around jurisdictional problems.
Perhaps I can relate here my first contact with Mr. Levesque as resource minister for the province of Quebec. He arrived in the middle of steering committee preparation because he replaced the Hon. Paul Earl as minister of resources for that province. Mr. Earl was not of the same inclination as his successor. Mr. Levesque objected to the presence of a federal minister-perhaps there were some separatist sentiments evident in that regard-presiding over the steering committee since Ottawa did not have jurisdiction over renewable resources. When I was chairman I indicated that I was also functioning as minister of northern affairs. He shrugged in his inimitable fashion and said I could continue as minister of northern affairs since Ottawa had jurisdiction, but not as minister of resources. This was a diversionary tactic which must always be exercised when it comes to dealing with the provinces in these matters if positive results are going to be achieved.
We now have legislation that all hon. members who have spoken this afternoon have concurred is long overdue. It is merely enabling. Nothing will happen unless funds are available. And here is where the crunch comes. I think that if Ottawa is going to make the legislation effective, in positive terms it must indicate what its funding priorities are. I have already intimated that the vitally important resource ministers' council has been inhibited and hampered in its work because adequate funds have not been available. As already mentioned here this afternoon, it is significant that one of the programs that fell under the measure of austerity of 1969 was the excellent pothole leasing project. It was very difficult in the first instance to get farmers to co-operate in leasing land to preserve the potholes of the Prairies where most of the duck population is generated, and I think it was a retrograde step of some proportion for Ottawa arbitrarily to cancel a program of this kind just when it was receiving ready acceptance from the prairie farmers.
I hope that programs such as this will be restored and enlarged upon, because it is this kind of leadership in the field of federal funding that is going to ensure the effectiveness of the act and the continuing co-operation of the provincial governments. One of the hopeful aspects of the wholly new attitude toward wise management and multiple use of renewable resources is the leadership being provided by young people. I think the generation that is now coming upon the scene will be much more positive than that which is gradually leaving the scene of action.
When we get this bill into committee I hope, since some members have suggested that the bill needs strengthening, we might give some attention to replacing some of the "mays" with "shalls", always of course being aware, as the bill is aware, that provincial agreement must be reached in

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
all cases, and also aware that the public of Canada is way out in front of governments in supporting legislation of this kind. It is the public who pay for programs in terms of taxation, and I am sure that any funding initiative on the part of Ottawa would be cordially received by the public of Canada.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join other members in welcoming Bill C-131. The bill will provide for a program of rehabilitation, habitat preservation and research for rare and endangered species within Canada. I am disappointed, though, that the bill does not include some provision for prohibiting entry into Canada of species of animals that are endangered throughout the world. I realize the rationale behind not doing so. There is a convention presently being drafted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, and I understand we are waiting for the completion of this convention before preparing legislation which, in a sense, will be complementary to Bill C-131 and will deal with the importation of endangered species into Canada.
In the meantime, however, things are going on which are contributing to the continuing decline in population of a wide range of species of animals and reptiles. If allowed to continue for another year or two at its present rate, these species will be pushed past the point of no return, and certainly into extinction within five or six years. It seems to me that we could by order in council now take certain measures that could contribute, at least as far as Canada is concerned, to stopping the drain on these irreplaceable species of wildlife.
I have had a bill before the House of Commons for three sessions now relating to the protection of endangered species of animals. The object of the bill that I have introduced-its present label is Bill C-88-is to protect species of animals and also birds, amphibians, reptiles, mollusks and crustaceans which are in danger of extinction. The bill would do this whether they are endangered on a worldwide basis or on a local habitat basis, and this is an improvement over a couple of earlier bills. It is very important that we make this distinction because some species, although they may not be endangered on a local basis are in danger of elimination from even one hemisphere or another, and any legislation or order in council we have here in Canada must take this into consideration.
To achieve the objective of protecting these species in danger of extinction, the bill which I propose would prohibit the importation into Canada of not only the furs, skins, etc., of these species but any part thereof or any product manufactured from a part thereof. This would include a cosmetic product that was manufactured from the oil of an endangered species of whale and it would include perhaps costume jewellery manufactured from endangered species of molluscs, etc.
This would go much further, in my view, than we are likely to see in any convention which is presently being drafted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and National Resources. I have been in touch with our customs people who have been studying the matter, and I gather from talking with our own customs officials

that it would be possible for the Canadian government to now or very quickly enforce restrictions under schedule C of the Customs Tariff. I understand this has been discussed with the national body drawing up the convention, but I gather that the body drawing up the convention is concentrating on sources of exports rather than on imports. Because of the world trend today toward simplifying procedures of customs varification through spot checks, it just does not make practical, common sense to try to do very much about imports. I take issue with this and I think they are seriously underestimating the strength of public opinion in this regard.
I would urge strongly that Canada take steps on its own through an order in council to prohibit the importation of all endangered species or parts thereof. I would suggest that even though we may have customs spot checks, as we now have, that arouse public opinion, hon. members of this House could find very many groups in their ridings who would go out policing to make sure that any endangered species of animals which appears on any store counter, or any cosmetic sold in any drugstore which contains a part of an endangered species, a whale for example, would be brought to the attention of the competent authorities. I feel that public opinion would provide much more effective policing than any customs check we could develop. We need not kid ourselves that customs could handle this completely, effectively or in an airtight way, but we do not have to depend on customs. Let us get the law on the books and we will leave it up to the public and the various environmental groups which exist in this country to enforce it; and I am convinced they can.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister- he may already be aware of it-a very serious abuse that has occurred within the last month and a half because we do not have any import regulations of this kind in Canada. The state of New York in particular, as well as the United States in general, have a very tough endangered species act which prohibits the importation into the United States of skins, furs, etc. Approximately six weeks ago a very important shipment of illicit skins from South America came into Canada and was exported to the United States, circumventing the U.S. customs officials. Through some very effective detective work this circumvention was discovered. These illicit traders are using Canada right now as a means to circumvent the severe import restrictions which exist in the United States.
I feel strongly that we should be taking steps now-and we could through an order in council-to prohibit absolutely the importation into Canada of these endangered species. We could bring this regulation in now, and when the international convention is in final form and we approve it by legislation, that could take the place of whatever order in council or regulation we may have enacted.
I hope the minister will be receptive to the suggestion of having at least the substance contained in both the private member's bill submitted by the hon. member for Scarborough West, Bill C-165, and my Bill C-88 referred to the committee which will be considering Bill C-131. I do not ask, necessarily, that the bills themselves be referred to the committee, but if we could have the subject matter referred by unanimous consent it would be useful. We
May 9, 1973

could perhaps bring in a number of witnesses to give their opinion as to precisely the most effective type of measure we could adopt here in Canada to contribute to the cessation of this illicit trade in endangered species or parts thereof.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-131 relating to wildlife services in Canada because of the very direct application it has to the area I represent, namely, the county of Norfolk. The Wildlife Service has only recently purchased a marsh in the area of Long Point from the Big Creek Company, and is presently making a survey of the area for the purpose of administering it to the best advantage of the people of the area and the wildlife which inhabit the marsh.
Let me refer specifically to clauses 3(a) and 3(e) wherein the word "co-operation" appears twice. It refers to the co-operation in wildlife and interpretation thereof and co-operation with the government of the province having an interest. In this particular instance, side by side with that area of the marsh acquired by the Wildlife Service is another area formerly owned by a local resident, Mr. Lee M. Brown, a very ardent conservationalist, comprising about 60 acres. This was recently given to the Long Point conservation authority which administers conservation activities throughout Norfolk and Haldimand counties. This provides an excellent opportunity for the co-operation which is mentioned twice in the bill.
I bring this to the attention of the minister and members of the House because I feel a very grave injustice has been done to Mr. Brown, the conservationalist to whom I referred, in that he was found guilty and fined in a local magistrate's court for contravention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Mr. Brown, as I said, has been a lifelong conservationist and is recognized throughout the area as such. He built up a sanctuary for Canada geese there, rivalling in a small way Jack Miner's sanctuary already referred to by the hon. member for Brandon-Sou-ris (Mr. Dinsdale). Crowds are flocking there to see wild geese during the migratory bird season.
I referred to the injustice done to this man, and I think it is best illustrated in a letter written to the editor of the Simcoe Reformer of Tuesday, April 17, part of which I would like to read into the record. It is written by a former editor of that paper, a lifelong resident of Norfolk and a friend of Mr. Brown. This is what he said in part:
In any case it seems a strange reward to Lee M. Brown for his generous act in deeding the sanctuary and about 60 acres of surrounding property free of charge to the conservation authority. His conviction and the levying of a fine against him is surely a peculiar way to express gratitude to one of Norfolk's leading conservationists and a man who has given many years of his life to building up a sanctuary for Canada geese and other bird life and who has expended many thousands of dollars of his own resources in feeding the thousands of birds and otherwise caring for them-
I will conclude with the following paragraph:
Now the outcome of this court case must give Mr. Brown occasion to wonder at such an expression of public gratitude for his unremitting work over the years in providing a haven of a unique character for birdlife in the Long Point area. Certainly he
Wildlife Protection
had good reason for discouragement in carrying out any further plans of this kind or to turn over more property to an ungrateful officialdom.
His many friends will resent the injustice done to one of Norfolk's most devoted conservationists.
I knew that this case was coming up so I wrote to the Wildlife Service here. Some of the men in the service are personal friends of Mr. Brown. I thought that in light of what I have already stated it would be only fair and just that this action against him be withdrawn. After all, there is the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law to observe. I refer again to the co-operation which I trust the legislation proposed in Bill C-131 will bring about among men like Mr. Brown, the Long Point conservation authority under the provincial government, and the Wildlife Service of Canada, and prevent such an incident from ever happening again.
All Mr. Brown was doing was thinning out the male population of blue billed ducks in that area at the time of the mating season, because often they would destroy the nests, kill the females and prevent the proper incubation of eggs. For this act he was technically and legally found guilty and was fined. But, after all, the spirit of the act should be applied as well as the letter of the law. We admit that justice must be done but, most important of all, justice must be seen to be done-and this certainly was not the case with respect to Mr. Brown.
So in supporting this legislation, as we all do, I appeal to the minister to ensure that when the regulations under the act are drawn up and the act is administered, there be some spirit of understanding and of humanity toward those people who are already doing great work in the field of conservation which this bill proposes to assist and increase.
There is more I could say, Mr. Speaker, but I know other hon. members wish to make a contribution to this debate and therefore I will close my remarks.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to join my colleagues in supporting Bill C-131 and the principles and objectives contained therein. It is encouraging to note that the bill authorizes the minister to promote wildlife conservation, engage in various research activities and establish the entering into of agreements with advisory committees, the provinces, municipalities and individual persons.
However, my purpose in entering the debate is specifically to point out what I consider to be a grave injustice done to many farmers in western Canada, particularly those who are located adjacent to bird sanctuaries in areas where waterfowl make their habitat. It is rather disturbing to note that there is nothing in the bill to provide for what I consider to be the basic ingredient in the maintenance of our wildlife, namely, food. For many years ducks and geese have been sponging off the farmer, to his financial and economic detriment and I believe that a great injustice is being done to the farmers directly affected.
It is no great secret that the wildlife of which we are all proud is a natural asset enjoyed by all people. However, I do not believe that the burden of maintaining ducks, geese and waterfowl which migrate should fall totally on the farmers. Millions of dollars worth of damage has been

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
done throughout the years and very little constructive effort has been made to compensate farmers for their losses.
In my own constituency of Vegreville there are two bird sanctuaries, the Beaver Hill sanctuary and the Whitford Lake sanctuary. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the wildlife there is the property of the Canadian people and therefore it should be up to the Canadian people to contribute to its maintenance. I think that the damage done by waterfowl is described very specifically in a booklet that has been put out by the Western Canadian Wildlife Advisory Committee, entitled "Uninvited Guests". To many producers in western Canada, ducks and geese, particularly in the wet fall season, are truly uninvited guests.
In the province of Alberta a fund has been established by the sportsmen of the province for the purpose of defraying some of the losses that the farmers have suffered. This fund was reimbursing $15 per acre over the years, but because of the heavy drain on it this amount has been adjusted to 86.15 per cent of $15, which works out to $12 or $12.50 per acre. I have a claims settlement sheet which was issued to a farmer in my constituency, a gentleman by the name of George Kucher who had 55 acres of barley totally damaged. It was inspected by the inspector of the Alberta hail and crop insurance board. To compensate him for his 100 per cent loss he received $710.74. That is a far cry from what he could have received had he been able to harvest this crop, which was barley. Fifty-five acres of barley would produce roughly $40 to $45 an acre. A reasonable estimate would be $40 an acre, and it would result in this producer obtaining some $2,200 out of his 55 acres of barley. However, because of the damage done by ducks he had to settle for some $710.74.
He lost another 85 acres in the same manner and received $1,098 to cover his loss-a far cry from what he could have received had he been able to harvest the crop. It seems to me that this particular gentleman, as well as many others who are trying to make a living from their efforts at farming, should be entitled to more adequate compensation than they have received, and I believe the federal government and the provincial governments should share the burden.
There are many ways in which this could be done. Perhaps a more effective lure program could be provided. But in addition to the loss which is sustained, each time a producer has to have an inspection it costs him $25 to have an inspector come from the Alberta hail insurance board to inspect his crop. In a particularly wet year he may end up having two or three inspections, depending on the length of time the harvest takes. In this particular case, in the crop year of 1971 Mr. Kucher had to pay out something like $75 for three different inspections made by an inspector of the Alberta hail insurance board.
I do not want to prolong this debate. I simply say to the minister that I hope some mechanism will be provided whereby adequate compensation will be made available to people who are afflicted by loss of crops due to damage by migratory waterfowl. I believe that the payment of $15 per acre is totally insufficient. It should be something in the

order of $35 to $40. I believe that the fee of $25 per inspection should be abolished. I also believe more sufficient lure crops and more adequate arrangements for areas situated close to bird sanctuaries should be provided so that losses would not be sustained year after year. Wet years are not uncommon in Canada and losses can occur year after year.
I hope that the minister, in co-operation with the provincial governments and municipalities, will be able to arrive at a suitable arrangement so that these people may be better compensated, thus creating a much greater understanding between those who support our wildlife by providing food and those who enjoy the advantages of our wildlife.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying, on behalf of all my colleagues, that we welcome this piece of legislation and I congratulate the minister for bringing it before the House. It has been said that it is a decade or so late, but better late than never. I think it is, or can be a useful piece of legislation.
The second thing I would like to say is in connection with the remarks of the two hon. members who have introduced bills which deal with the abolition of the trade in the pelts and skins of endangered species. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to convey to both of these colleagues, who are on different sides of the House, the fact that they will have my absolute support in bringing their bills forward and I will do everything within my power to expedite the passage of those bills. Having said that, perhaps some discussion might take place afterward so that this can be achieved.
Having said some nice things, I now want to ask all members of the government side of the House to pay attention for just a few minutes while I say something that I believe they should hear. Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker; this bill does not do very much more than has been done in practice in the past. Secondly, I am concerned, and I think all hon. members ought to be concerned, that apparently the minister is treating the federal jurisdiction north of 60 degrees, so far as the problem of initiating action under this bill is concerned, as though he were dealing with provinces. I remind all hon. members of the government side that that area comprises 44 per cent of the land mass of Canada and over that 44 per cent we do have federal jurisdiction.
Please let us not back away from the authority we have when we are dealing with a matter which is becoming as vital as the preservation of our wildlife, something which we are now starting to recognize is not an inexhaustible resource, something which is a priceless resource. From the speeches made today it can be seen that we all agree about this. I beg hon. members on the government side to take this message back to their colleagues. Do not back out of an area of jurisdiction and the authority you already have, since this bill can be so useful in that area even if it has its difficulties elsewhere.
I also want to comment that this bill will only be as successful, so far as dealing with the provinces is concerned, as its funding is in order to entice the provinces into the programs envisaged. As a consequence, I hope
May 9, 1973

hon. members will keep pressure upon the government to make sure that there is sufficient funding from time to time.
There is one other comment I would like to make before I close. Reference has been made today to just about everything one can imagine in the environmental field, but I single out one which I ask all members of the House to consider. That is the question of the leg-hold trap. Hon. members have said that they have received letters from children, adults, organizations and societies pointing out the cruelty of the leg-hold trap. Again I want to say that I will support any legislation to ameliorate this situation. I recognize that there are problems involved, but I ask the government to give it serious consideration and as soon as possible bring something before the House so that we can at least to some degree remove the cruelty that exists under the present trapping system.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of speaking in this debate. I thank hon. members for their attention. Again I congratulate the minister for bringing this bill before the House, and again I ask that the caveats which I have mentioned be considered by all hon. members in the spirit in which they are given.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss at length the principles of the legislation before us. They have been pretty well covered by other hon. members. I would just like to underline what I think has been put before the House in the form of a suggestion. I hope the minister will indicate some willingness to have the subject of two other bills considered conjointly with this particular bill when it reaches committee stage, namely, Bill C-88 standing in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), and Bill C-165 in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney).
I have been looking at these two bills as they interrelate with Bill C-131. While I realize this is not the place to go into any detailed discussion of the clauses, I would like to draw attention to clause 9 in the bill before us which is headed "Endangered life" and which provides authority for the minister to take measures in co-operation with one or more provincial governments. I think that the thrust of the other two bills I have mentioned might relate to that matter in such a way that the authority proposed in clause 9 could be extended, at least for the time being, to provide authority directly from parliament for the minister to co-operate with other governmental authorities outside Canada.
It is in that context that I think the implications of the two private members' public bills might be considered by the committee. Perhaps something could then be sorted out, with the agreement of the minister, whereby some of the ideas in them could be incorporated into this bill, at least pending any further developments such as were referred to by the hon. member for Laprairie when he made his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I must notify the House that if the hon. minister speaks now, he will conclude the debate.
Wildlife Protection


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks before six o'clock because I hope this bill can be sent to committee and there dealt with promptly. Everyone who spoke on this legislation has endorsed the basic principles underlying the bill. Essentially they said that it is good but that perhaps it does not go far enough, and they have asked for clarification.
The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) charged my ministry and the Canadian Wildlife Service in particular with dashing off in all directions. I might remind him that the amount of money available to the Canadian Wildlife Service in recent years in my view has been too small. It has been increased in the last half-dozen years, but still roughly $10 million a year is not enough to do the job which I believe it should be doing in the next few years.
The hon. members for Skeena (Mr. Howard) referred to species in danger of extinction as if these were the only animals and birds with which the Canadian Wildlife Service is concerned. I am sure he knows of many instances such as the North American duck population which is now several times its original size. The Canadian Wildlife Service has had a major hand in the protection of that species and also in the wise management of much larger populations.
The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) raised the question of trade in skins, trophies, etc., and of endangered species originating in other parts of the world, with a view to their protection. I might tell him and other members that Environment Canada, and in particular the officials of the Canadian Wildlife Service, have been very active in the drafting of an international convention on endangered species. That convention is in draft form, has been initialled by Canada and will shortly be signed by Canada and a number of other countries. Once it has been endorsed by a large number of countries, which I hope will happen in a matter of months, then in fact under our existing trade and commerce regulations we have the law necessary to put its major stipulation into legal effect in this country, and import and export controls as required will be implemented by this government.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) referred to various projects in this country and suggested that because of financial restrictions the Canadian Wildlife Service was not able to participate adequately in environmental appraisals in the Mackenzie River corridor. The budget over a three-year period is half a million dollars a year, so it has been funded handsomely to carry out that particular job. The three-year program will be completed this fall. Other appraisals have also been undertaken. For example, he referred to the James Bay investigations which are in their third year and in which the Canadian Wildlife Service has participated. He used some of the current phraseology in describing James Bay. I hope he attends the meetings of the committee and cross-examines our experts on wildlife. I will be surprised if he finds them giving evidence that there will be extensive damage to migratory birds, for example, as a result of the James Bay development.
The Peace-Athabasca delta problem has been investigated very carefully and we expect that, at a cost of $2'A

May 9, 1973
Wildlife Protection
million, we will be able to return it to a state of nature. Whether we will be able to collect the $214 million from British Columbia Hydro remains to be seen but we will try.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) spoke about pothole leasing. That program was researched carefully for several years but is not regarded as very productive by our experts. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) talked about crop depradation. I do not know how well the government in Alberta communicates with hon. members of the federal Conservative party, but a new crop depradation program has been in effect for a year. It was worked out in close consultation with the province. The federal contribution is $1 million per year. This program for the feeding of ducks, geese, and so on, flying backwards and forwards across Canada has worked to the satisfaction of the provincial government and the farmers.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) made an important point. We said that the administrations in the Territories and the Yukon should not be treated as if they were provincial governments. Were he to make the same speech in Yellowknife or Whitehorse he might find a different reception than that from members who live in the Ottawa area. The old-fashioned imperialism which used to see decisions made in the national capital, and very few made in the Territories, has long passed. I believe that the Territorial administration and the administration in the Yukon should be given as much latitude as possible to determine the use of local resources. The Canadian Wildlife Service will provide as much advice as it can, and the hon. member has my assurance that I will step in wherever I believe it necessary in order to avert catastrophe in respect of a particular species.
That is the sum and total of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I hope this legislation can now be referred to the appropriate standing committee.
[ Translation]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a point of order to propose to the House something that has been the subject of discussion with a number of hon. members. It relates to Bill C-88 standing in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), and Bill C-165 in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney), both of which refer to the question of endangered species. As I understand it, there is general agreement that the subject matter of those two bills be referred to the committee as companions to the government bill. Accordingly, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move:
That the subject matter of Bills C-88 and C-165 respecting the protection of endangered species be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The Chair must ask for the unanimous consent of the House to this presentation. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, order for second reading discharged and Bills C-88 and C-165 referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
At 6.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
May 9, 1973

[Stage Direction]
Minister, Health and Welfare Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9.
April 18th, 1973.
My dear Minister,
Re: New Financing Arrangements In The Health Care Field
As you will recall, a revised federal proposal for new financing arrangements in the health care field was presented to the Joint Meeting of Ministers of Health and the Federal/Provincial Committee of Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers on January 19, 1973. Provincial ministers at the time were asked to study the revised proposal with a view to reconvening with us in about two months' time for the purpose of trying to reach agreement on the amount of the federal contribution for health services. Telegrams were recently sent to all provincial ministers concerned advising that this further meeting will take place on May 8 and 9.
In the discussion immediately following presentation of the revised federal offer, provincial ministers commented on the financial features of the proposal. They stated their concern about the adequacy of the escalator and questioned whether the newly introduced risk-sharing feature would provide sufficient protection should there be unexpected escalation in costs at a rate in excess of the escalation in the federal contribution. Subsequently, in the
course of the technical discussions which took place after January 19 officials of several provinces likewise raised these two issues and elaborated on the reasons for their being a cause of concern. A criticism of the proposed risk-sharing formula related to its non-cumulative characteristics, i.e., it made no provision for repeating in subsequent years any federal contribution in respect of excess escalation in costs that a province might experience in a particular year. There was, of course, a reason for this. In relation to long term cost projections for hospital and medical services and the improved effectiveness which provinces should be able to achieve in providing health services as a result of being able to use the federal contribution throughout the entire range of services, the federal government considered that its contributions under its previous proposal would be adequate. The availability of a large block of thrust funds to assist provinces to develop and introduce more economical methods of delivering services provided further support for this view.
Notwithstanding the above considerations the federal government now has further reviewed these two aspects of the proposal and taking into account the possibility of provinces encountering unexpected situations, has approved further modifications as follows:
(a) The declining 1 per cent adjustment incorporated in the escalator to be advanced from 1974-75 to 1973-74. The following illustrates how the escalator now proposed compares with the one contained in the January 19 proposal:
Fiscal	Escalator Now	Escalator in January 19Year	Proposed	Proposal1972/73	Base Year	Base Year1973/74	G.N.P. -f 1 per cent	G.N.P.1974/75	G.N.P. + .80 per cent	G.N.P. -f 1 per cent1975/76	G.N.P. + .60 per cent	G.N.P. .75 per cent1976/77	G.N.P. 4- .40 per cent	G.N.P. 4- .50 per cent1977/78	G.N.P. + .20 per cent	G.N.P. + .25 per cent1978/79	G.N.P.	G.N.P.
The base year would continue to be 1972/73 with present arrangements maintained in 1973/74 and thrust funds made available in that year. However, it is necessary to escalate the 1972/73 federal per capita contributions to provinces pursuant to the formula through 1973/74 in order to determine the 1974/75 per capita contributions. You will appreciate that improving the escalator in 1973/74 by advancing the declining 1 per cent has a significant effect on the level of the per capitas, and consequently on the gross contributions in the years thereafter. In particular, it creates a rate of escalation in the federal contribution that matches more closely the rate of escalation in the estimated provincial costs during the early years of the new arrangements.
(b) The risk-sharing formula to be cumulative but on a diminishing basis. In this way, the federal government
would be able to take account of certain important provincial concerns, but'without abandoning the fundamental objectives of the new financing formula.
Under this approach risk-sharing payments made in a particular year under the "75-50-25" formula contained in the January proposal would be phased out in subsequent years in the following manner:
-a risk-sharing contribution made in the first year, i.e. 1974/75, would be followed by payments equal to 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 of that contribution in the second, third and fourth years respectively;
-a further risk-sharing contribution or one made for the first time in the second year, i.e., 1975/76, would be followed by payments equal to 2/3 and 1/3 of that contribution in the third and fourth years respectively;
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 19V3
[Stage Direction]
a similar type of contribution made in the third year would be followed with a payment equal to one-half of that contribution in the fourth year;
-contributions towards excess expenditures in the fourth (1977/78) and fifth (1978/79) years of a new health financing agreement would not be followed by additional payments in subsequent years.
(Note: An illustration of this revised approach is contained in the attached folder).
This modified risk-sharing feature recognizes that excess expenditures i.e., the value of the difference between the rate of escalation in the federal contribution and provincial costs, incurred in a year might recur in whole or in part in succeeding years. This revised approach would relieve the provinces of a portion of the additional financial burden accruing to the provinces in succeeding years as a result of unexpected additional expense in one year. The principle of phasing out risksharing payments recognizes that, if a province spends at a rate that exceeds federal contributions in a year, such a province should be able, through economies in other parts of its health program, gradually to de-escalate costs to its original target rate of expenditure. Furthermore, the revised risk-sharing provisions assume that provincial administrations, with the use of thrust funds, will be in a better position to prevent excess expenditures by the last few years of the proposed new arrangements.
Finally, in assessing this revised proposal, provincial ministers no doubt will recall that federal contributions under the risk-sharing formula will be in relation to total health expenditures as defined.
Another issue briefly raised at the January 19 conference and further discussed in the subsequent technical meetings related to the loss of federal contributions under the Canada Assistance Plan that occur when a province changes the basis for its support to health or health related services (such as nursing home care) from a needstest basis to an insured or universal basis. A policy that results in the loss of CAP contributions when a province introduces changes of this nature in the health services field might be inconsistent with the basic objectives of the federal proposal for new financing arrangements. Accordingly, the federal government is prepared to agree that where a province participating under the new arrangements chooses, or has chosen, to make available health or health-related benefits on a universal basis in an area in which there has been federal cost-sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan, that province will be entitled to receive similar levels of federal financial contributions as it would have received had it not introduced the universal program. You will appreciate that this is a rather complex subject and, consequently, the mechanism for implementing this principle has to be worked out jointly. I will be prepared to explore with my provincial counterparts alternative methods for its implementation.
With these additional modifications, I believe the federal proposal now provides a full and reasoned response to the principal concerns which certain provincial governments have enunciated respecting the proposed new health financing agreement.
As for the form of the federal contribution, a number of provinces have suggested that this should be by way of a transfer of tax room. If the newly revised proposal on the quantum contained in this letter is accepted by provincial governments, the federal Minister of Finance remains ready to discuss in detail, at our meeting of May 8-9, the possibility of some transfer of tax room. In this regard I am attaching a copy of a separate letter that Mr. Turner has written to his provincial counterparts.
I am also attaching folders which contain new calculations reflecting the latest cost projections that we have received from the province, recent revisions to our assumptions concerning the future performance of the gross national product and the modification in the escalator described on page 2 of this letter. You will note that on the basis of the assumptions made with respect to future health cost trends of your province and the GNP rate of growth, it is calculated that the basic federal contribution to your province (i.e., excluding the risk-sharing provision) under the proposed new arrangements compares favourably with the estimated contribution that would be made if present arrangements were retained. These figures exclude the additional contributions that would be available should it become necessary to invoke the risksharing formula.
You may recall that some months ago I forwarded to you in mimeograph form copies of Dr. A.P. Ruderman's report which formed an appendix to the Report on Community Health Centres prepared by the committee under the chairmanship of Dr. John Hastings. Dr. Ruderman's report now has been printed in final form and I am pleased to forward two copies of it to you.
I look forward to renewing our discussion on the very important subject of new financing arrangements in the health care field, and I hope that this new proposal will meet with your approval and enable us to finalize the matter very soon.
Yours truly,
Marc Lalonde.
Attach.
The Secretary of State, Canada
Ottawa, May 1, 1973.
You will recall that the Prime Minister wrote to provincial First Ministers on November 9, 1970, suggesting that the post-secondary education fiscal transfer program be extended for two years, in order to provide time for a review of the present arrangements. Following further discussions between my predecessor, the Honourable Gerard Pelletier, and the Council of Ministers of Education, as well as with individual Ministers of Education, it was decided that the 1967 program should continue until March 31, 1974, with a national rate of growth in the federal contribution not exceeding 15 per cent per annum.
The present program of fiscal transfers in support of post-secondary education will therefore have been in operation for seven years when it expires on March 31, 1974. It may be useful, in light of the examination which we have carried out since that time, and of comments of other interested governments, if I were to review briefly a
May 9, 1973
[Stage Direction]
few of the major considerations relating to the development of the program to date.
First, it is significant to note that annual operating expenditures have risen at a rapid rate during the life of the program, especially in the early years when for example the percentage increases were of the order of 25 per cent between 1967-68 and 1968-69, although they declined thereafter to an estimated 7.9 per cent between 1972-73 and 1973-74. It is also noteworthy that, in line with this growth pattern, federal contributions increased substantially in each succeeding year of the program and that the value of transfers to the provinces in respect of postsecondary education will have reached an estimated cumulative total of some $5.3 billion by March 1974, as indicated on an annual basis in table 1.
With the assistance of these transfers the provinces and the institutions were able to set in motion an unprecedented expansion of post-secondary instruction. As shown in table 2, the number of full-time students in universities and colleges and other post-secondary institutions across Canada increased during the first five years of the program by 60 per cent to a total of 497,000. In addition to full-time students, an estimated 250,000 persons were attending post-secondary institutions in Canada on a parttime basis in the fifth year of the program and costs relating to a further 200,000 at the senior matriculation level were also eligible for federal contributions under the program.
A number of demographic factors have also been and will continue to be of major importance. Of particular relevance is the size of the 18-24 age group which up to now has been the source of more than 80 per cent of all full-time post-secondary enrolments. When the present fiscal transfer program went into effect the ranks of Canadians in the 18-24 age group were growing at a record-breaking pace, and by 1971 their number had reached 2.7 million, an increase of 552,000 over a five-year period. As shown in table 3, however, the rate of growth of this age group will be progressively slower in the present decade until approximately 1983 when the number of 18-24 year olds will begin to decline in absolute terms.
The above-mentioned factors indicate, I believe, that the present program was established in 1967 to respond to a very special set of circumstances in the post-secondary education sector, Furthermore, in our view, the program has on the whole been successful in meeting the objectives which were foremost in the governments' minds in 1966. At the same time, we are of course aware that there may have been certain shortcomings in the existing arrangements and that from time to time the program has been the subject of criticism by provincial governments. For example, some provinces are of the opinion that the arrangements have represented a pressure on their priorities and that unavoidable rigidities inherent in the formula may to some degree have inhibited innovation and adaptation of educational structures to changing needs. We are also aware that the program may have permitted certain inequities, in that it allows those provinces in which the greatest amounts are spent to claim the largest federal transfers.
In the circumstances, the federal government has given careful attention, in the course of its review, to ways and means of removing these shortcomings and of introducing improvements which would result in a more satisfactory arrangement from both the provincial and federal points of view. In particular, we have examined a number of alternative financing formulae which might assist in meeting more adequately the generally accepted objectives of interregional and interpersonal equity.
At the same time, we are aware of and accept the continued importance of adequate financing of postsecondary education in Canada and believe that funding should continue at a level which will enable governments to meet their obligations in this sector. As a result, the federal government considers it of prime importance to provide a level of contributions which will ensure that the needs of the provinces can be adequately met on both a medium- and long-term basis.
In light of all the above considerations I should like to propose to provincial governments a conversion of the present program of fiscal transfers into a system of provincial per capita entitlements based on the size of the 18-24 age group in each province and escalated at 7 percent per annum, subject to a levelling provision designed to bring all provincial per capita entitlements to parity over a ten-year period. Such entitlements would continue to be met through a combination of the present tax points relating to post-secondary education and adjustment payments, and the conversion formula would be in effect for five years commencing April 1, 1974.
The formula would be based on eligible actual operating expenditures for the fiscal year 1973-74 calculated according to part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972. Table 3 indicates that, on the basis of current estimates it is likely that the fiscal transfer will amount in that year to approximately $1,066 million. Table 4 illustrates the estimated entitlement for each province for the year 1974-75 and for each of the four subsequent years. According to our present calculations, an escalator of 7 per cent per annum multiplied by the population 18-24 will produce an average national annual increase in the federal contributions during the next five years of some 9.4 per cent as compared with the latest estimate of a 7.9 increase in eligible operating expenditures on post-secondary education between 1972-73 and
1973-74.
I hope the above proposals will be satisfactory to all provincial governments and I look forward to hearing your reaction at the Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Finance, Health and Education on May 8 and 9. I understand that the question of the post-secondary education fiscal transfer will be dealt with on May 8 in the afternoon.
Yours sincerely,
J. Hugh Faulkner
Ends. (4)
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1973

[Stage Direction]
Notes for Remarks by Finance Minister John N. Turner to a Joint Federal-Provincial Meeting of Finance and Health Ministers Ottawa, May 8, 1973
Introduction:
Mr. Lalonde has just explained the modification in the basic federal formula for determining the amount of the federal financial contribution for provincial health care services and substantial improvements in the so-called "risk-sharing" provisions. He has also given assurances that provinces will retain federal sharing now paid under the Canada Assistance Plan when they switch a health or health-related program from a needs test basis to a universal basis.
The federal proposal thus provides for a reasonable rate of growth in basic federal payments. And it includes a risk-sharing provision which takes account of a number of suggestions we have received from provincial governments. Perhaps most importantly, provinces will be free to spend federal payments throughout the entire range of health services, so that they will be able to plan their programs according to their own priorities. This additional flexibility, together with thrust funds, will assist provincial governments in the development of more effective and economical systems of health delivery. The fact that federal payments will no longer be related to costs will also, of course, mean an end to the detailed federal audit.
As I indicated to provincial ministers of finance in a letter of April 18, if provincial governments are now prepared to agree to the formula which Mr. Lalonde has proposed on behalf of the federal government, I would be ready to consider with you in some detail the form of the federal contribution. In this regard, a number of provincial governments have expressed the view that the federal payment for health services should be via a reduction in federal government taxes. This would enable provinces to increase their rates, with no increase in the tax burden borne by Canadians.
Principles Underpinning Tax Transfer
Accordingly, I should like to make a specific proposal to you today. It is predicated on the condition that provinces are able to agree with the new formula approach for determining the annual federal contribution to provincial health care programs. Before outlining the specific details, however, I want to set out the principles which underlie the tax transfer proposal.
First, the size of the reduction in federal taxes must take into account the expected rate of growth in revenues from the tax room being transferred; it must also take account of increase in the federal contribution for health services. Perhaps this is a point which is not well understood and I should make clear what is involved. Suppose the federal government were to cut its taxes today by the exact number of personal income tax points required to cover the federal contribution for health services in this year and provinces were to raise theirs by a commensurate amount. That number of tax points would, in less than a
year, over-compensate provincial governments by a very large amount. The reason, of course, is that the value of tax points is growing more rapidly than the expected rate of growth in provincial spending on health services and the anticipated federal payments for these services.
As a concrete example to illustrate this point, let me take the recent proposal put forward by the Government of Quebec for a 28-point income tax point transfer to cover the federal payment for hospital insurance, medical care and post-secondary education. Our calculations show that such a transfer would, by the end of the decade, yield provincial governments a cumulative sum of more than $10 billion over and above the amount of federal payments otherwise available. Moreover, at that time, the excess payments would be growing at a rate of about $3 billion annually. It was never intended that a transfer of tax room to cover federal obligations under existing shared-cost programs should be used as a mechanism for a large-scale transfer of fiscal revenues from the federal to the provincial level. That is an issue which we have always maintained should be resolved on its own merits, and not determined as a more or less accidental result of new financing arrangements covering shared-cost programs.
Second, we remain convinced that it is in the overriding national interest for the federal government to continue to occupy a large position in the personal income tax field. This is fundamental, if the federal government is to continue to bear the main burden of responsibility for economic stabilization, to maintain harmony in the over-all national tax system, and to fulfill its responsibilities for the distribution of income among Canadians and among the regions of Canada.
Third, as Mr. Lalonde has already mentioned, if the federal government is to cut taxes to pay for its share of health services, this would have to be based upon firm undertakings that the basic principles of the existing hospital and medical legislation remain unaltered. I refer here to the principles relating to the universality and comprehensiveness of services; the accessibility of these services to the Canadian people; their public, non-profit nature; and the portability of coverage for individual Canadians moving from one province to another. The importance of maintaining these conditions has been emphasized in the past and, from earlier discussions, I believe there is a consensus in support of this position.
Let me add one further important point. The transfer of tax room can only be made operative if all provinces accept the new financing arrangements. We cannot see our way clear to implement the necessary tax cut unless it can be applied across the country. Otherwise, there would be different basic levels of federal taxation from province to province. This is a situation which we would regard as injurious to national unity and the growth and efficiency of the national economy.
Details of Proposal
Bearing these principles in mind, we would like to suggest a transfer of tax room in two parts, together wiith a continuation of cash adjustment payments for as long as they may be required.
May 9, 1973
[Stage Direction]
First, we would be prepared to reduce the rate of federal personal income tax by 6 percentage points. These tax points would be equalized to the national average under the existing provisions of the Fiscal Arrangements Act. The federal government would give a firm undertaking to effect this transfer. But, for reasons I shall explain in a moment, we do not think it would be practical, or desirable to make it operative until January 1, 1977. An appropriate cash payment would therefore be continued during this transitional period.
Second, we would be prepared to eliminate the existing federal excise taxes and duties on domestic and imported tobacco products, spirits, brandy, wine and beer. Provincial governments would then be able to move into this tax room without any increase in costs to consumers. It would be possible to implement the federal tax cut effective on January 1, 1975. The additional revenues that provinces could obtain from these revenue sources would also be equalized to the national average. Provincial governments, of course, already obtain large amounts of revenues from these two tax sources. Federal withdrawal would thus enable provinces to consolidate their revenue position in these areas.
Third, to the extent that the value of the tax cut is not sufficient to pay for the federal contribution for health services, as determined under the GNP-escalated formula, the federal government would make this up by a cash adjustment. In due course, and at varying dates, the growth in the yield of the taxes transferred would provide revenues to each province equal to and higher than the federal payment otherwise due.
Mechanics of the Tax Proposal
Let me elaborate a little on the important question of the mechanics of the tax transfers proposed.
With respect to the personal income tax, I must make clear, at the outset, that for reasons which are well known to all of you the federal government will not effect its tax cut through the abatement system. Rather, the tax cut would be implemented through the introduction of new federal and provincial rate schedules. When the federal government reduces its rate, provincial administrations will be able to obtain the federal revenues foregone by increasing their tax rates. There would be no additional burden on taxpayers.
However, as I have already indicated, we do not think it desirable to try to implement this major change in the federal rate structure until January 1, 1977. There are two reasons for this. The first is that Canadian taxpayers have only recently been subject to some fairly extensive changes in the structure of the personal income tax system. This is the first year in which they will have an opportunity to become accustomed to new forms and new schedules. In addition, a number of provincial governments have recently introduced changes in their own personal income tax systems in the form of property tax credits, school tax credits and so forth. We think it is very desirable to give the tax system a chance to settle down before any further major changes are made. Second, by 1977, we will have had some years of experience with the new tax system. We need that experience to obtain more
adequate information respecting the system. That date appears to me as the most appropriate time at which the transfer could be formally effected. Naturally, provinces would be paid in the form of cash until the federal income taxes are cut.
As for the proposal respecting excise levies, the federal government would amend the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Customs Tariff in order to remove the special excise taxes and duties on tobacco products and alcoholic beverages. This includes the excise element of the customs duties on imports of such goods.
In the case of tobacco products, the repeal of federal excise levies would allow the provinces to increase provincial sales taxes on these goods by an equivalent amount without increasing tobacco prices. The provinces would thus acquire additional revenue equal to the amount of federal revenue foregone.
In the case of spirits and wines, the provinces, by holding constant their retail prices on these beverages, would acquire the federal revenues foregone because of the elimination of the federal excise taxes and duties on these products. The transfer of revenues from spirits and wines would thus be effected through an implicit increase in provincial mark-ups. In provinces where certain Canadian wines are retailed through manufacturers' outlets, the recovery by the province of federal levies on such wines might require the introduction of a special provincial tax.
The transfer of federal revenues on beer could be effected by provinces increasing their levies on breweries simultaneously with the repeal of the federal excise taxes and duties.
I understand that the value of the tax room provided to each province through a repeal of excise taxes and duties would be relatively simple to measure. Excise rates on alcoholic beverages and most tobacco products are expressed as fixed amounts per unit or gallon. Accordingly, the value of the tax room in each province would be determined by multiplying those rates by the quantities sold in each province. I should add that the elimination of excise levies on alcoholic beverages would not mean that federal supervision over quality control in the production of these products would end. The federal government would continue to maintain supervisory personnel in distilleries and breweries to ensure quality control.
We would also propose that any additonal revenues which flow to the provinces as a result of higher provincial tax rates on personal income, alcohol and tobacco, would be equalized automatically under the general equalization formula in the Fiscal Arrangements Act. The amount of equalization would of course be treated as an integral part of the federal payment for health services to the seven provinces receiving equalization.
In the case of Quebec, there is already in place a special 16-point personal income tax abatement which constitutes a part of the federal contribution for hospital insurance in that province. If the provinces agree with our proposal and the federal government goes ahead with a reduction of 6 points of personal income tax, I shall want to consult with the minister of finance for Quebec concerning the future status of the special abatement.
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1973
Financial Aspects of the Proposed Tax Transfer
I want to say a word now about the financial implications of the proposed transfer of tax room. The year 1975 is the first year in which the federal duties and taxes would be eliminated. In that year, I estimate the value of the proposed transfer of excise tax room would be worth about $1.4 billion, including associated equalization. I estimate this $1.4 billion will be a little more than half the proposed federal contribution for health services in that year. Fiscal year 1977-78 would be the first complete year in the new health financing agreement in which both the excise taxes and personal income tax transfers would be effective. In 1977-78 I estimate that, for the country as a whole, about 85 to 90 per cent of the federal payment will be covered by the tax transfer. This percentage will vary somewhat from province to province, but it would appear that, in 1977-78, all provinces will receive at least 75 per cent of the federal payment through the proposed transfer of tax room.
You are all aware that the value of personal income tax points grows rapidly, whereas revenues from alcohol and tobacco taxes grow relatively less quickly. By combining the two, I believe we have a package which will provide an appropriate rate of growth of revenue to pay for health programs. Over a period of years, as the value of the personal income tax component grows relative to the excise room, the value of the tax cuts by the federal government will gradually reduce the required cash adjustment. In due course, provincial governments can reasonably anticipate that the tax transfer will more than cover the federal commitment.
Of course, I do not want to suggest that provincial governments would have to increase their tax rates by the precise amount of the federal cut. Provinces can raise their levies more or less than the federal reduction, as they see fit, and they obviously could alter the mix between personal income tax or their taxes on alcohol and tobacco.
Our estimates are no more than estimates. It is still not possible to be precise about the yield of the personal income tax under the new tax system. Furthermore, any projections about the future value of tax points are based heavily on estimates respecting the future growth of the economy. If the value of the tax room transferred should grow very rapidly, then the date when the value of tax room exceeds the amount of the federal contribution would arrive sooner. If the growth rate in the tax room being transferred turns out to be less than we estimate, provincial governments will receive larger cash adjustment payments.
Conclusions
Let me summarize the essential points in the federal proposal respecting the formula and the tax transfer. The proposal would enable provincial governments to spend the funds they receive as they see fit. The additional flexibility provided will enable them to introduce and operate more economic and effective ways of delivering health services. The amount of the reduction in federal taxes will, in due course, enable them to administer their programs without direct federal financial support. In fact,
provinces may experience a "surplus" relative to the federal government's financial commitment respecting provincial health costs.
I understand that this subject will be on the agenda of the first ministers' meeting later this month. I recognize that not all of you will be able to comment in detail today on the proposal which I have put before you. However, it would be helpful to get preliminary reactions from you.
I believe that if we can reach an agreement on the federal payment, thus making it possible to implement the tax transfer, we shall have taken a large and important step forward. The winner, as a result, will be the Canadian people-both as taxpayers and recipients of health services.

[Stage Direction]
[The attached statement by Finance Minister John N. Turner to the joint federal-provincial meeting of finance and education ministers responds to a letter from the Honourable Saul Miller, Manitoba Minister of Colleges and University Affairs. Mr. Miller's letter, written on the behalf of the provinces' Council of Education Ministers, proposed a transfer of additional tax points to the provinces to finance post-secondary education.]
I would like to address myself to three points made in the letter: (1) the suggestion that the federal government should transfer additional personal income tax points to the provinces in the form of a tax abatement to finance post-secondary education; (2) that these tax points should be equalized to the value of the tax in the province with the highest yield; (3) the implication that this program should be used as a means to transfer a greater share of revenues from the Government of Canada to provincial governments for general purposes.
The letter outlines the reasons why the transfer of additional tax points is being requested. Essentially, it is argued that a transfer in the form of tax points would avoid interfering with the ability of individual provinces to determine their own priorities. It would also allow provinces greater flexibility to achieve greater efficiency and improvement in services. Finally, it would eliminate the administrative complexities of the present arrangements, related to such things as the definition of shareable costs, settlement of final payments and apparent inconsistencies in practice from province to province.
I might say at the outset that the formula Mr. Faulkner has presented to you this afternoon will overcome the problems just described. Under the new formula, which relates the federal contribution to factors other than actual program operating costs, provinces would be freed from the administrative intrusion that inevitably results when contributions are related to actual program practices and costs. Provinces would have all of the freedom and flexibility they needed to develop their own programs as they see fit.
The suggestion that additional personal income tax points be transferred from the Government of Canada to provincial governments does not appear to me to be justified. At the present time, the 4.357 points of personal income tax and the one point of corporate taxable income.
May 9, 1973
[Stage Direction]
both equalized to the national average, which form part of the federal payment to the provinces, cover about 55 per cent of the federal contribution. The remainder is, of course, paid out in the form of cash to the provinces. We all foresee that the value of these tax points will increase at a more rapid rate than the rates at which post-secondary education costs will rise. As a result, the value of the tax points already abated to provinces will exceed the federal financial commitment in the foreseeable future. From the day this happens, provinces will in effect be receiving an "overpayment", if I may put it that way, for this program. Moreover, the amount of this "overpayment" will increase each year as the value of the tax points increases relative to the increase in program costs.
A major objective on our part, which I believe provincial governments would share, is to establish conditions that allow provinces the freedom and flexibility they are asking for to manage their own programs of post-secondary education, while maintaining a reasonable growth of federal contributions. By a reasonable growth rate, we mean a rate that is roughly commensurate with the growth in the national economy.
The formula proposed, consisting of the 1973-74 actual federal contribution escalated by the rate of growth of the population group 18-24 years of age, together with the 7 per cent escalation factor, will add up to an annual growth of between 9 and 10 per cent in federal contributions. This formula represents a generous contribution towards provincial post-secondary education costs and is somewhat higher than the growth in costs anticipated for the current fiscal year. It provides an adequate margin for improving provincial post-secondary education programs, over and above what might be needed to meet rising prices. A transfer of additional tax points, as I pointed out, would involve a much higher rate of federal contribution and would jeopardize the goal of reasonable growth. Alternatively, the transfer of additional tax points would merely mean that this program was used as a device for transferring resources to the provinces, for purposes other than post-secondary education. I do not see how we could justify such a step on either grounds.
The second point in Mr. Miller's letter I would like to comment on is the suggestion for a new system of equalization based on the province where the yield is highest. The basic principle underlying the general equalization program contained in the Fiscal Arrangements Act, and generally accepted by both recipient and non-recipient provinces alike, is that the lower-income provinces should receive a federal grant to enable them to finance a national average level of services. This is still a valid national policy objective. The suggestion in Mr. Miller's letter is in conflict with this principle. Moreover, I would note that equalization of some tax points to the value in the province with the highest yield, rather than to the national average, value would imply that post-secondary education programs have a higher priority than we may, in fact, be prepared to accord them. I would put these programs in a privileged position vis-a-vis other programs competing for national resources. I fail to see the justification for such special treatment.
The last point I want to comment on is the implication that post-secondary education programs should be used as a means to transfer more tax revenue from the federal to provincial governments in order to meet growing cost pressures. I take it that these "growing cost pressures" relate to programs other than post-secondary education. Recent experience has shown considerable easing in the rate of growth of expenditures on post-secondary education.
If the problem is pressure on government programs generally, it seems to me that the post-secondary education program should not be used as a vehicle for meeting it. Rather the case for more revenues should be argued on its own merits. As I said this morning, it was never intended that a transfer of tax room to cover federal obligations under existing shared-cost programs should be used as a mechanism for a large scale transfer of fiscal resources from the federal to the provincial governments. This morning I proposed transfering all of the excise taxes and duties on tobacco and alcohol plus 6 personal income tax points to the provinces to help in the financing of health programs. I fully appreciate the views and concerns of provinces who have requested tax room to finance well-established programs, and this has been reflected in our proposal this morning. At the same time, we have to move carefully in this direction so as not to erode seriously the ability of the federal government to use the tax system as a major instrument of economic policy.
In this connection, I can only repeat what we have so often maintained in the past: that the federal government has a responsibility to maintain sufficient control over the income tax system to permit it to effectively manage the economy and to achieve a greater degree of equality in the distribution of income between provinces and between individuals.
I might also draw to the attention of our provincial colleagues that the recent federal budget contained three major measures making for larger provincial revenues or tax room. First, the personal income tax was cut substantially, in the order of $1.3 billion, and these amounts have no termination date. Second, the rapid economic upswing that is developing from the budgetary measures will increase provincial revenues in the order of $400 million accumulated over a period of two years. Third, the inclusion in the general equalization system of municipal taxes imposed for local school purposes will add about $190 million beginning this fiscal year to the seven lower-income provinces. In all, I think it fair to say that these moves have assisted provinces during this current year in financing their growing budgets without generalized tax increases.
These conclude my comments on the suggestions in Mr. Miller's letter.

[Stage Direction]
Notes for Remarks by Finance Minister John N. Turner to a Joint Federal-Provincial Meeting of Finance Ministers and Treasurers
You will recall that the revenue guarantee was originally proposed as a device to ensure that provinces, which
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1973
adopted income tax legislation conforming to that of the federal government, would receive no less in tax revenue under the new system of tax reform than under the previous tax system, had it remained in place. We could not know the precise effects of tax reform, or be certain whether a province would suffer a loss of revenue by adopting the new system.
The best estimates at the time indicated that the tax base upon which new provincial personal income tax rates would be levied would be about 8 per cent lower than the so-called federal "basic tax" employed under the old tax system. Accordingly, our calculations suggested that provinces levying rates in the proportion of 30.5 over 28 of their 1971 rates would be receiving about the same amount of revenue under the new system as under the old. If it turned out that the calculations of the federal government were wrong, and the provinces received more revenue under the new system, they would retain this benefit. On the other hand, if the provincial revenues received from applying the new, higher converted rate to the lower base were less than the amount estimated to be received under the old system, this difference would be made up as part of the guarantee. The guarantee, you recall, covers the combined yields of the personal and corporate income taxes, including associated equalization. Thus, as long as provinces continued to conform to the federal income tax legislation and expressed their provincial income taxes on the federal base, the guarantee would be operative.
I have been reviewing the revenue guarantee in the light of its original intent, and taking account of developments since its inception in January, 1972. I must admit that the guarantee has become an exceedingly complicated issue, both in technical terms but, more importantly, in its broader context. The original intent of the guarantee was to encourage provinces to conform to the new federal income tax legislation. If provinces conformed and expressed their tax rates on the basis of federal tax payable, the federal government was prepared to guarantee the yield of the new system to be at least equivalent to that of the old. To this end, the federal government calculated new converted tax rates, designed to yield revenues equal to the old system and guaranteed that the application of these rates would yield revenues equal to the old system.
It can be argued that the guarantee should not compensate for any changes in the tax system subsequent to January, 1972. If changes did occur to the federal tax base so as to affect provincial revenues, the provincial tax rates ought to be adjusted to yield the same revenues as before the changes, in the manner followed at the beginning of 1972. While these arguments have some merit, I am of the view that the position we have adopted respecting the changes announced for 1972 and 1973 is appropriate.
In the budget of February 19, I proposed a number of changes which would reduce the personal income tax burden on Canadian taxpayers. These included increases in personal expemptions from $1,500 to $1,600 for single persons and from $2,850 to $3,000 for married persons
effective January 1, 1973. I also proposed that the exemptions and tax brackets would be automatically increased each year by reference to changes in the consumer price index. This indexation of the personal income tax system, which is to begin in 1974, is designed to relieve taxpayers of increased income taxes which arise not from gains in productivity, but from the interaction of inflation and the progressive nature of the tax system.
I announced at the time of the budget that the reduction in provincial revenues arising out of the increased exemptions for individual taxpayers would be covered under the provisions of the revenue guarantee contained in part IV of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972. This action parallels a similar decision taken in May, 1972 when I announced that the measures reducing both personal and corporation income taxes would also be covered by the guarantee.
Still, the indexation of the personal income tax, to begin in 1974, appears to me to differ in substance from other changes that have been proposed or enacted. In essence, the indexation proposal reduces the tax burden on individuals which arise out of inflationary, not real, gains and adds a greater degree of fairness to the tax system. As a corollary, governments will no longer be able to spend tax money arising from inflationary gains, but will be required to increase tax rates explicitly, in order to carry out more ambitious spending programs.
The indexation proposal was well received by Parliament and by Canadian taxpayers generally. I am not surprised by this reaction, since the proposal constitutes a major advance in the fairness and equity of the tax system. We all recognize that this advance is not without cost. The proposal means that governments will receive somewhat less revenue than they would otherwise have obtained from a continuation of the present system. This is necessary to give meaning to the indexing feature. I would emphasize, however, that the only revenues thereby foregone by governments are those which the tax structure would have imposed on inflationary, and not real, gains in income. Uqcler these circumstances, it seems to me entirely inappropriate for provinces to expect compensation for those foregone revenues. I would not expect provincial governments to ask the federal government to increase its taxes on Canadian taxpayers, who have had their burden relieved by indexation, in order to make payments to provinces, equal to inflationary revenue gains they would have received in the absence of indexing.
Admittedly, the entire subject of the revenue guarantee is complicated, and I will want to consult with each of you over the coming several months, to arrive at some commonly acceptable solution. There is a particularly difficult problem of adjustment for all provinces when the guarantee comes to an end in 1976. I have been giving some further thought to the situation both immediate and forthcoming. In due course, I would want to consult with you with some concrete proposals. Perhaps we will find it advantageous at an appropriate early date to have some technical aspects of the matter explored by our officials.
I would welcome comments from you on this matter.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 10, 1973