1975-08-01

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the natural enthusiasm which members are expressing in meeting here for the first time, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 with regard to a matter of urgent and pressing importance.
My motion deals with the terms and conditions being imposed on the news media by Miss Inger Hansen in respect of their reporting of the inquiry which Miss Hansen is currently holding into an incident last November at the Millhaven penitentiary and the fact that this House should demand an explanation of what appears on the surface to be a very dangerous practice.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs inquire into the restrictions placed on the news media by Miss Inger Hansen in regard to the inquiry into certain events at Millhaven penitentiary and report to the House whether this interference with the right of the news media to report freely and fully upon a public inquiry is justified in the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion can only be presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise pursuant to provisions of Standing Order 43. During International Women's Year a number of women's associations drew the attention of Canadians and of people elsewhere in the world to the existence of certain women political prisoners in the U.S.S.R. These women have been sentenced under certain articles of the Ukranian Criminal Code which clearly conflict with the constitution of the
U.S.S.R. and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Canadian government urge the government of the Soviet Union to adhere to the human rights provisions spelled out in the Helsinki agreement and that Canada take the initiative in raising this question at the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hort. Members: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion relates to a special secret study being made in reference to the closure of certain military armed services bases, in particular Calgary, where land, armoured, infantry and services forces includes 2,300 officers and men and 480 civilians.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That before any Canadian base is closed, particularly Calgary, the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so as the facts and reasons for the review are all disclosed openly in the committee so the public is made aware of the real reasons for such closures and for the purpose of avoiding any discrimination against any part of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

January 26, 1976
Air-Sea Rescue


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present an important and urgent motion.
Because the ravages of inflation constantly reduce the real purchasing power of Canadians, because the low-wage earners, the poor, the underprivileged are forced to borrow money at high interest rates to solve their problems and make ends meet, and also because interests rates are really too high in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House study, at the very first opportunity, the possibility of lowering interest rates in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion cannot be put without unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to present before the House a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that there is no air-sea rescue unit in Newfoundland, the last unit having been removed to Nova Scotia in 1964, and in light of the most recent tragedy in which two fishermen were lost on the east coast of Newfoundland, underlining the need for such an air-sea rescue unit in our province, and because of the critical time involved in having rescue operations carried out from Nova Scotia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the Minister of National Defence be directed to have air-sea rescue aircraft stationed in eastern Newfoundland.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PREVENTION OF INCREASE IN MEMBERS' TAX-FREE ALLOWANCE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. The urgent and pressing necessity is the fact that it is desirable to clear up a point of uncertainty. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman):
That this House calls on the government to indicate forthwith its readiness to move or accept an amendment to Bill C-81 to prevent any increase at this time in the tax-free allowances as well as the salaries of Members of Parliament, Senators and cabinet ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a motion under Standing Order 43. A task force report of the trilateral commission on ocean management warns of the danger of nations deciding not to wait for the end of the global treaty-making process and resorting instead to arrangements amongst themselves, thereby destroying the intent of the conference.
Since Canada has been negotiating and signing agreements with several nations on fisheries management, contrary to the advice of the commission, and since continuing pessimism is being expressed by an increasing number of countries as to the achievement of an international agreement on a 200-mile economic zone, many of those countries taking unilateral action, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a statement on motions forthwith expressing Canada's position at the Law of the Sea conference in March, particularly to relate its plan if, indeed, as is obvious to the government itself, no international agreement will be reached.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 26, 1976


FISHERIES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the growing controversy concerning the equity and practicality of the temporary freeze on the issuance of new licences for lobster fishermen and vessels, which has resulted in telegrams of protest from at least one cabinet minister from Nova Scotia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Minister of State for Fisheries refrain from any further action in this respect until this House can be assured that there has been more meaningful input and consultation from those affected in the fishing industry than is presently the case, at least in the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which concerns the problem of inflation in British Columbia. In view of the recent announcement of the government of British Columbia that it intends to increase automobile insurance premiums in the province by as much as 100 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I wish the Socreds on my right would calm down-in view of the increasing unease throughout the country due to the government's inability to get signed agreements from provincial governments on their antiinflation guidelines and in view of the interference in teacher bargaining, a provincial matter, in Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Anti-Inflation Board immediately investigate the premium increase in British Columbia in terms of its consistency with the federal government guidelines, and that the federal government immediately make representations to the government of British Columbia to roll back these unnecessary and exorbitant increases until they line up with the government's guidelines.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion cannot be presented without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED CALLING OF ELECTION TO PERMIT DECISION ON ECONOMIC POLICY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of recent statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in regard to the new society replacing the free market system on which the foundation of this very institution rests. As the Prime Minister, who today is visiting the Republic of Cuba and possibly brushing up on the Communist system, stated on several occasions that the traditional free market system in this country is not working as it should and that he intends, as Prime Minister, to alter it with yet further government intervention, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to advise forthwith His Excellency the Governor General to dissolve this House of Commons for the purpose of allowing the electorate of this nation to decide its basic economic and moral future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such motion cannot be presented without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: Send it to Australia.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister? As the Prime Minister is busy looking for the other new society and the Minister of Finance is absent-I do not know where he is today-I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister questions about the real and rather messy world of inflation.


Mr. Nystrom:: That's the old society.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House how many provinces have now signed agreements for the administration of the controls program?


Mr. Andre:: Fourteen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, so far, one agreement has been signed-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!

January 26, 1976
Oral Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -namely, with the province of Ontario. Authorization of the Governor in Council is being sought to add to that number, particularly in relation to the Atlantic provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that only one province has signed and there is mention of three or possibly four more which may be prepared to sign, is the government prepared to reconvene the conference of first ministers, as the Prime Minister indicated might be done, in order to assure something like prompt nation-wide and uniform action?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be necessary to reconvene the meeting of first ministers. Progress is being made in signing these agreements. We do not have any hostility from the provinces. We anticipate co-operation from them all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Robert Lorne Stanfield: this is what the government considers to be progress, there is no need to wonder why they need a three year program to perhaps even get started. In view of the statement by the Economic Council of Canada that measures contained in the last budget are expected to result in a faster rate of price increase and a slower rate of growth, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House when we may expect a budget so that members on both sides of this House can come to grips with the realities and problems of today rather than just being left with the Prime Minister's future "schlock"?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity of discussing with the House leaders the possibility that the annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, might be referred to either a standing committee of this House or a joint committee for discussion. I agree with him that some of the comments are worthy of a good deal more attention than they have received.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT IN VIEW OF UNITED STATES STUDY-POSSIBILITY OF MEETING WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Since one of the purposes of the anti-inflation program is to ensure our competitive position in world trade, when will the Acting Prime Minister be making a statement on the auto pact in

view of the study recently completed by the United States International Trade Commission on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I have seen the press reports. The study itself has not yet been released. Therefore, we are unable to comment upon its contents.


William James Kempling: In view of the fact that our trade deficit in automotive trade under the auto pact will be in excess of $1 billion this fiscal year and our automotive parts trade deficit will be more than $2 billion, will the Acting Prime Minister advise when the study group on the auto pact within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be meeting with their counterparts in the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that would be an appropriate vehicle for such discussions. I think the discussion should take place between the two governments at the ministerial or secretarial level. May I point out to the hon. member that the report that appeared in the paper does criticize the pact as being very advantageous to Canada.


William James Kempling: Can the Acting Prime Minister advise whether the American government has requested a joint meeting to study the auto pact? If not, will the Canadian government initiate a meeting on this trade agreement, bearing in mind that President Ford agreed to a joint trade study on December 4?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have not had any request recently from the United States government for such a meeting. We ourselves have suggested this and would welcome one.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the new Minister of the Environment. I congratulate him on his appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is the good part of the story. In his touching television address to the people of Canada on Monday, the Prime Minister referred to the fact that a lot of buck-passing had taken place on the issue of pollution control. Is the new Minister of the Environment going to put an end to his own government's buck-passing on pollution control in the Syncrude project and insist that the federal government's pollution control standards be applied to the Syncrude project as a condition for further federal participation in it?
January 26, 1976


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do intend to fight pollution everywhere and even here, within the House.
I also wish to thank the hon. member for his congratulations, as well as all hon. members of the opposition and government members who congratulated me also. It is extremely nice of them. However, I do know that those niceties will be followed by less pleasant things and that is to be expected. Such are the rules of the game.
As for the very specific questions which we referred to, I think that within a few days, if I may be granted the time to go over the documents which were handed to me, I shall be able to inform the House on the question which is now being raised.


John Edward Broadbent: I will remain optimistic for a few days, anyway, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware, and, if not, would he check into the matter and confirm the point, that because of the refusal of the federal government to apply its own pollution control standards, in particular to the use of the latest pollution abatement equipment, some 280 long tons of sulphur will be poured each day into the atmosphere, affecting the entire Athabasca River system and persisting as far away as Saskatchewan? I am referring to the Syncrude project.


Jean Marchand: I think the first suggestion I made was the right one. I will check into that matter and give an answer, maybe tomorrow.


REQUEST FOR LIST OF AREAS IN WHICH RADIO-ACTIVE WASTE DEPOSITED-SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF DANGERS
John Edward Broadbent: I should like to ask the minister a further question arising from the disclosure of a potentially serious radio-active waste problem in the Port Hope region. Would he provide the House with a list of other areas in Canada where such wastes are deposited and inform the House whether, following the discovery at Port Hope, his own department has investigated the potential danger at these other sites?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had a meeting this morning with the deputy minister of the department and this is one point he raised, that we should take a very serious look at what is going on in Port Hope as far as nuclear waste is concerned. I hope I shall soon be in a position to give a full report on all the points to which the hon. member has referred.


PORT HOPE-ACTION TO RELIEVE CONCERN OF CITIZENS ABOUT RADON GAS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it relates to the Port Hope situation.


An hon. Member:: Here he is, fresh from the Ontario Liberal meeting!
Oral Questions


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It sounded more like a Tory meeting after what they were saying about you guys.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Since the problem in Port Hope relates to a federal government agency I should like to ask the minister what steps the government is taking, other than the setting up of an information office, to relieve the concern felt by the citizens of Port Hope with regard not only to the radon gas but to health hazards caused by radio-activity generally? Would the minister tell us, also, what the government is doing to relieve their concern about the generally poor image of their town in the eyes of the rest of the country?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: We have tried to move with the utmost despatch and urgency and to deal with this question in a thorough way. We have been co-operating with the Ontario department of health and I think the degree of co-operation between the two governments has been outstanding. I think we have been able to pursue the investigation in a thorough way. We have not sought to deal with the question through press releases, but on an individual basis through those particular properties which have been identified. In addition to the storefront office the hon. member has mentioned, we have set up a mobile service for the purpose of monitoring the various places where there is perhaps some suspicion of the presence of radio-active waste.


PORT HOPE-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CASE OF SOIL REMOVAL-POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A MEDICAL CLINIC IN AREA
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Two
questions specifically, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell me whether the government is undertaking to underwrite the costs pertaining to soil and fill removal, including the cost of the new ventilation system in that separate school in Port Hope? Secondly, has the government any plans to set up any type of medical clinic so that anyone in the area who feels they may have been affected by this material can go and get a clean bill of health?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as to the first point about underwriting the cost, Eldorado itself has been active in making alterations to certain properties. It is doing so without prejudice as to where the ultimate responsibility for these costs lie; the important point is to get on with the job rather than to argue about who should pay for it at this time.
As to the second point, the question of a clinic, I think that is a constructive suggestion, and one that I personally would like to discuss with the minister of health in the Ontario government, where I think perhaps the major facilities are available.

January 26, 1976
Oral Questions


CUSTOMS
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Considering the many telegrams I received lately from citizens of Mont-Joli and considering also that they are strongly opposed to the closing of the customs office in Mont-Joli, could the minister tell the House whether he has any intention of reopening that office?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I also received many telegrams and the hon. member for Matane made representations to me on that subject. I therefore had to examine the telegrams and my decision is now made: No, Mont-Joli will be closed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Bearing in mind Canada's extensive aid to Cuba in the form of CIDA grants and EDC financing of well over $100 million, would the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether he anticipates that the Prime Minister, while in Cuba, will protest that country's involvement in the unfortunate Angolan war, and will he indicate while in Cuba that there will be a withdrawal of future aid if Cuba persists in becoming involved in wars in foreign countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's visit to Cuba gives the leader of the government of Canada an opportunity to express personally to the Prime Minister of Cuba Canada's policy, which is opposed to foreign intervention by anyone in Angola, including that country. I think there will be an opportunity at this time, an opportunity that some people on the hon. member's side would deny the Prime Minister, of having a face to face encounter.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will direct to the Acting Prime Minister. As only last week the Export Development Corporation announced that they had approved $285 million of new funds for certain countries, including Cuba, and as the specific agreements are still being negotiated, would the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the government is considering instructing the EDC management that they should extend no such financing to Cuba so long as they participate with troops in a foreign war in which they have no involvement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that where there are differences of view between peoples and governments normal commercial and aid relations should not be continued.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Again in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of CIDA not only having extended millions of dollars in aid to Cuba but even having an outstanding $10 million line of credit available to that country at 3 per cent interest, would the Acting Prime Minister state whether the government is considering withdrawing this line of credit so long as Cuba persists in continuing its present international involvement?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The attitude of the Canadian government on this question is very clear. There are many countries in the world with whose policies we do not agree. We do not think it is in the interests of world peace, world development, the improvement of the lot of poor people throughout the world, when we do have these differences, to withdraw either our commercial relations or our aid.


NATURAL GAS-GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES TO COMPANIES TO INCREASE RESERVES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the rather dismal picture which the minister painted for the businessmen of the United States who gathered at Pittsburgh last week regarding Canada's dwindling oil and gas reserves, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House just what additional development incentives the government is prepared to offer to the petroleum industry to try to greatly increase these vitally needed reserves?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased right now to make an extensive answer to that question by reciting the many incentives we have provided to the industry. Let me just make one or two points. Very recently we increased the price of natural gas and assured that the incremental price for exports would go to the industry. We changed the income tax regulations about a year ago, and these changes become effective on January 1 of this year regarding resource allowances. I think these moves, particularly the increase in the price of gas which has occurred, and which may occur this year, will provide a very substantial cash flow for the Canadian industry to be applied to the exploration and development of our northern resources. I trust, and I have told the industry I expect them to use that increased cash flow for exploration and development in Canada.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as it is the opinion of the oil and gas industry in Canada that what the government is at present doing is not nearly enough to induce sufficient new development to bring our gas and oil reserves up to the amount that will be required in the future, will this minister and the government take another look at his
January 26, 1976

program with the realization that the important people in the oil and gas industry are not going to react in any way close to the way the government hopes?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gent'eman has been following recent events he will have seen the change that had taken place in respect of drilling rig movement and activity in Canada. I think clearly the tide is coming in now in respect of drilling activity in Canada. I might also say that I hope to be introducing into the House of Commons in the very near future a new set of oil and gas regulations which I think will remove some of the uncertainties that exist in respect of exploration and development in the north.


PENITENTIARIES
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General relating to the inquiry now being held into an incident at the Millhaven penitentiary last November. Is the minister aware of the very severe restrictions being placed by Miss Inger Hansen on the reporting of the proceedings of the inquiry and the subsequent report by Miss Hansen? Is he satisfied that these limitations should be placed on this inquiry, and under what authority is Miss Hansen acting in so inhibiting this inquiry that ought to be held in public?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, Miss Hansen is operating under the Inquiries Act. Generally, these inquiries into penitentiary disturbances are held in camera. I think this is one of the first occasions on which the press in being permitted to attend. In admitting the press, she placed a condition on them that they must not reveal the names of the witnesses because that would jeopardize the safety of both the staff and the inmates of the penitentiary if this information were revealed.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, when the Anti-Inflation Board made a ruling in respect of the pulp and paper strike it intruded into the management-labour negotiations in Ontario. Will the Minister of Labour now discuss with the reluctant minister of labour for Ontario a method of bringing both the employers and representatives of the CPW back to the bargaining table in order that a reasonable settlement can be arrived at and the desperate financial situation facing the pulp and paper, one industry, communities of northern Ontario be resolved?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the latest information I have from both direct and indirect sources is
Oral Questions
that some of the parties involved have indicated they are back at the bargaining table this week.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Transport advise the House of the rationale of the Air Transport Committee of the CRTC in the matter of Laker Airways being suspended for 14 days for an offence committed some two or three years ago on the basis of information supplied and computed by a Canadian company transmitted through Laker Airways, and does he think the same type of treatment should apply to any Canadian air carrier caught in the same circumstances abroad?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt at all that the same kind of treatment would apply to any Canadian carrier caught in circumstances like that in Canada because the concern of the Air Transport Committee was very much with the falseness of the information supplied rather than with the specific regulation in respect of which the information was sought. Fisrtly, the party in question had to take responsibility for supplying of the information, and accordingly the CTC suspended permission to take on passengers for a period of one month. I reviewed the exact sentence and exercised a prerogative, cutting that period down to two weeks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in arriving at that decision, did the minister take into account the rather nonsensical basis of the regulation, since the matter has now been withdrawn and the regulation does not provide any benefit to the Canadian people or the air industry?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has missed the point of my remark which related to the very serious nature of the action on the part of Laker Airways in its failure to supply correct information, and supplying, through the responsibility it had, false information to the Air Transport Committee, a matter which is very serious indeed to the whole regulation of activities whether in the air or elsewhere.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister.
In the present fight against inflation, can the minister assure the House and the Canadian people that the government will concentrate its effort on cutting expenses at the administrative level, for instance within the Crown or other corporations which are under its authority, like the

January 26, 1976
Oral Questions
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, rather than in its social programs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite aware , f the priorities of the government. We have said we are not going to put the burden of controlling inflation on the backs of the poor or the under-privileged of this country. He knows that is our position, that we are opposed to this. We will also try to do everything we can about waste wherever this can be done, whether it is in government or in Crown corporations. I do not think, however, that we should in any way jeopardize the commercial prospects of our Crown corporations.


Claude Wagner: More precisely, Mr. Speaker, will the government undertake not to fight inflation on the backs of the elderly people and those with young families in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the best evidence of that is the very large increases in family allowances that were made recently by this government without, I might say, the measure of support we should have had from the other side.


AIRPORTS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on December 31 passengers were refused service at the Aeroquay Restaurant at Toronto at 7 p.m. because the staff was decorating the empty restaurant for a New Year's eve party to be held later in the evening, will the Minister of Transport consider making the airport restaurant concessions conditional upon providing service to the travelling public?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has brought this problem to my attention. I will certainly follow up her suggestion and look into the matter.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Justice has more than his hands full these days keeping his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, out of trouble, I still believe he has other ongoing responsibilities. As it is now over six months since we have amended the Judges Act, which among other things set up the appeal court in the province of Newfoundland, I would ask the minister when we can expect appointments to that appeal court to be completed since the whole system of justice is

being held up in Newfoundland pending these ministerial appointments?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, one appointment has been made since I have been the Minister of Justice which has completed the appointments to the trial division of the courts in Newfoundland. I have had on my desk, under active consideration, an appointment to the court of appeal and I would hope to make an appointment soon.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister considering bringing in a bill immediately for the purpose of deleting Section 5(a) (iv) of the Immigration Act, which at present enforces a mediaeval attitude toward persons afflicted with epilepsy?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have indicated my own distaste for the wording of the act as currently administered, and I am sure that this is shared by all members of the House. I have also indicated that the Immigration Act is in the process of significant and large revision. In the meantime we are continuing to issue minister's permits to people with epilepsy. I think that section of the act will be removed when the Immigration Act is revised, hopefully during this year.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. Has the minister asked the Government House Leader for a priority position for his major bill amending the Immigration Act? At present it is charitable to refer to its progress as glacier-like. When does the minister expect it to be passed into law? What is his target date?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is a contradiction in the hon. member's comment and others in which it has been said that we were trying to rush this and proceed too quickly. I think we are finding a happy balance; we have made a very considerable effort to get the views of Canadians during this past year. We did commit ourselves not to proceed with the development of policy until the report of the joint committee of the House and Senate was tabled. That was tabled in November. We are proceeding now with despatch, but I do not think we will be placing the bill before the House of Commons within the next short time. Indeed, it is a very significant change we are looking at now and I would anticipate passage of the bill during this year.
January 26, 1976


SUGGESTED EARLY DELETION OF PROVISION CONCERNING EPILEPSY
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. In view of the minister's stated opinion that a new Immigration Act will be brought forward this year, obviously time is needed for the passage of that bill, and in view of the former representations made by myself and other members of this House that speedy passage be given to the deletion of section 5 concerning the restrictions relative to epilepsy, would the minister give us an undertaking that in this session he will bring in an amendment so that this part of the bill could be passed and people given landed immigrant status rather than the weak position in which they find themselves under minister's permits.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am very sympathetic to the suggestion. I would point out, however, that there are many anachronisms in the Act of which we are all aware. This one, of course, has had some very understandable attention by the country because of recent events. We are looking into specific cases with a full understanding of the wording of the outmoded Act and are handling them now on minister's permits. I cannot honestly feel people are being inhibited, particularly with the assurance of myself and the government that that section will be deleted. I have to say there are many other inequities in this Act which I believe deserve equal attention. I would really prefer to wrap it all up in the broader amendments which the hon. member and others are helping me develop.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and hopefully a short supplementary for the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask him why the Government of Canada made no protest in respect of the four Canadians who made a forced landing in Cuba where they were held in custody, allegedly by Russian KGB agents, on December 30. I should like to ask him if the Prime Minister is discussing this matter with Prime Minister Fidel Castro.


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was put before the government right after the pilot's return and a department officer immediately contacted him and asked him what difficulties and conditions he had to face.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, is it government policy to take no specific action at a time when Canadian citizens are held in a foreign country and questioned by Russian KGB agents? Also, would the policy be similar if Canadians were found in another country and were questioned by members of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


REASON FOR CLOSING OF BASES-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF COMMITTEE STUDY BEFORE BASES CLOSED
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question concerning the phasing out and closing of certain armed forces bases, particularly in the city of Calgary, where 2,800 men are stationed and where 480 civilians are working. The replacement of these facilities would probably involve something in the order of $150 million to $250 million. Why is that being reviewed and what is the purpose of a closure or phase-out in that part of the country.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the rationalization of our infrastructure is proceeding, as I indicated several weeks ago in the House when I made the announcement of the other decisions concerning national defence, but there have been no specific decisions on bases and no base closures have been decided at this time, including Calgary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to assure the House and the country that before any decisions are made concerning these armed forces bases, the matter will be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that the facts will be before the public and so that we may be sure there is not discrimination.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance.


FISHERIES
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fisheries in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that a task force report to a trilateral commission, of which Canada is a participant, warns against multilateral arrangements by governments as a threat to the success of the conference, and in view of the fact that Canada has signed fisheries management negotiations with several countries contrary to the advice of the report, would the minister indicate whether or not this action is being taken because it now is obvious that international agreement will not be reached in New York? If not, what is the position Canada will be taking?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the advice the hon. member refers to, but certainly the example set by Canada that negotiated bilateral agreement should precede extension of jurisdiction is a very wise course. This is amply demonstrated by those countries which are now imitating us. Certainly nothing we are doing would pre-judge in any way the outcome of the New York meeting. We are getting ready for all eventualities.

January 26, 1976
Oral Questions


ARRANGEMENTS WITH FRANCE CONCERNING EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION OVER MARINE RESOURCES
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that more nations are declaring unilateral action and it has come out of the colloquium that Sri Lanka and Kenya expressed a desire that enabling legislation be produced to declare unilateral action, would the minister indicate in the arrangements with the various countries concerning fishing agreements what is the position with regard to France, particularly concerning St. Pierre-Miquelon which can cause problems in respect of declaring a 200-mile limit.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the wisdom of the Canadian government is shown by the fact that enabling legislation has existed since 1971. It is only a matter of an order in council and a 60-day delay for jurisdiction to be extended. So, that course is already covered. As for the relations with France, in the case of extension of jurisdiction there is already a treaty with France covering what our fisheries relations would be. The boundaries matter is obviously more complicated.


POSSIBLE MEASURES TO PREVENT INCREASE IN COST OF OIL USED BY ATLANTIC PROVINCES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the heads of the three provincially-owned generating systems in the Atlantic provinces and the energy advisor to the Prince Edward Island government all agreed at a meeting held last week that rising oil prices and the reduction or elimination of the federal oil import subsidy would likely result in a doubling of existing power rates by 1980 in the Atlantic provinces, I would like to ask the minister what initiative his department intends to take to stave off what can only be considered as a crisis with many side consequences for that region of Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows we have taken considerable steps to phase in the price of oil and natural gas in Canada, particularly oil as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned. We have cushioned the consumers of oil in the Atlantic provinces by compensation.
Another point I wish to make is that we have been very active in trying to assist the Atlantic provinces develop their own electric power generating capacity without relying on oil, and of course I refer to the Le Preau installation in the province of New Brunswick.


Andrew Hogan: I listened intently to the minister's answer, but surely the minister realizes that if electricity from oil fired thermal stations, which cost about 18 mills per kilowatt hour now, is going to double by 1980, and that is based

on a conservative projected oil cost of $12.19 per barrel for oil-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Andrew Hogan: -then a rethinking on the subsidy matter is now needed.


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of the Environment. I welcome the minister to this new position, and perhaps in light of the fact that earlier he served in the transport portfolio, he may be aware in more detail of the particular question I am about to ask. It is with respect to the continuing pollution danger of the Irving Whale, which was inspected not too long ago by one of the ships of the new minister's department. Comments have been made that that inspection was primarily a public relations effort and that there is continuing danger and some seepage from the Irving Whale. In view of the danger both to the marine ecology and to the tourist and fisheries industries of Prince Edward Island, I wonder whether the minister will make a statement indicating what final steps will be taken to prevent any massive danger or future deterioration of the hull of the Irving Whale.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I know about the Irving Whale is what I learned from the Ministry of Transport, that it was more dangerous to try to lift the Irving Whale than to leave her there. Perhaps there have been some developments since that time, and I would be happy to hear from either my department or the Department of Transport if this opinion has changed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that during the past year attempts have been made to examine, by use of a submersible, the actual condition of the Irving Whale and that there has been no statement or actual scientific material tabled with respect to the comparative dangers either of removing her or of taking other action to prevent her deterioration and pollution of the environment, could the minister indicate that there will be some full and frank disclosures of the several issues which are involved so that the people of Prince Edward Island may be relieved of the anxiety they have with respect to this problem?


Jean Marchand: There have been some studies made on this, and there have been people travelling around the world trying to learn the expertise of other countries. The answer is the one I gave, that it is more dangerous to remove the ship than to leave her there. Perhaps I can check if there are any new developments, and I will answer more fully to the hon. member.
January 26, 1976


POST OFFICE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Can the minister tell the House whether the Post Office has yet located the five bags of mail, including one bag of registered mail, with 53 winning Olympic lottery stubs in it which went astray en route from Guelph to Montreal last September 29?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime we are making sure nobody claims the winning tickets.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I wish to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister which relates to the musings of the Prime Minister about a more controlled society in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the Prime Minister's new society will be run by the same people the Post Office-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the minister promised a program for cow-calf producers months ago, would the minister make a commitment to the House as to when he will be coming forward with a program for this distressed industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question before the House recessed at Christmas.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, particularly as leader of the Quebec Liberal caucus.
Oral Questions
Last weekend, an in camera meeting was held in Montreal during which 250 members of the general council of the Liberal party from Quebec unanimously adopted a resolution urging Mr. Bourassa to ask financial support for the Olympic Games. Considering that the Quebec premier is asking his federal colleagues to support his proposition, I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he will take the opportunity of the first meeting of the Liberal caucus to urge his colleagues, ministers as well as members of parliament, to support the Quebec premier's proposition?


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH PROVINCIAL CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I hope his answer will shed some light on the question of the jurisdiction of the AntiInflation Board over the provinces and their agencies. In particular I ask whether the AIB is expected, as was previously announced, to follow the general provisions of the Income Tax Act, and whether we can expect therefore that the Board will be authorized to deal with provincial Crown corporations in a way different from that of ordinary provincial agencies.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be asking for a legal opinion. I should like at least to read the exact terms of the question.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Given the fact that dairy farmers are receiving less now than they were 18 months ago, which would suggest that they need more production, and given the fact that the minister is saying they are over producing, can we expect from the minister a dairy policy prior to April 8, a sane and sensible dairy policy which would give dairy farmers a reasonable return on their investment?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they are not getting less for their production, as the hon. member says. They are getting the same amount of money I said I would give them last year. They are producing more than is economically feasible when there is no market. That is a waste of time and energy.


John Raymond Ellis: Surely in a world which is short of food over production in any form of food is necessary.

January 26, 1976
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act


POSSIBLE FREEDOM TO SELL SURPLUS DAIRY PRODUCTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture to the dairy producers of Canada they should cut back production because of increasing surpluses of milk products, and in view of carrying costs of surplus products to the industry and the Canadian taxpayer, would the minister be prepared to give entrepreneurs of the condemned free enterprise system the go ahead and the co-operation required to promote the sale of the products surplus to the requirements of Canadians?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in the total world supply of skim milk powder at the present time there is 1,600,000 tons of surplus skim milk powder. The free market is there for entrepreneurs. If they want to advertise all the products they have, they can do that. There is no control to stop them from doing that. If the hon. member wants to know, the entrepreneurs in the dairy industry are yelling just as loudly as the dairy farmers for me to stop imports from all over the world coming into Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the fact that orders for hundreds of thousands of pounds of dairy products are available throughout the world, would the minister state whether the government will be taking any action to facilitate the sale and movement of surplus food products, and if so, what?


Eugene Whelan: There is only a market for a certain amount of this product in the world. We have tried every way to put it into food aid, and when hon. members suggest that the starving world could consume this food, that is utter nonsense. If they want to investigate they will find out that the world distribution system cannot distribute it even if there was a need for it, and we cannot find that need at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: And the whole skim milk powder world is doing the same thing with the same products. They all have surplus, including the European Community, New Zealand, Australia, and several other countries as well.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2 of the 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 Nova Scotia, 1976.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government House leader is prepared at this time to indicate the nature of the business of the House for the foreseeable future.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been some of the usual discussions amongst House leaders and I think we are more or less agreed upon this program. For the present week, we should like to consider and dispose of the following motions: completion of Bill C-78, the Halifax Relief Commission; Bill C-41, western grain stabilization, which is at third reading; and Bill C-71, amendments to the Criminal Code: we would also like to complete second reading of Bill C-20, second reading amendments to the Citizenship Act. If we have any time, after disposing of those items we would take Bill S-10, Senate amendments to the Feeds Act.
For the following week, I should like to indicate what our intentions are because I know hon. members are concerned about more contentious pieces of legislation. I am not quite sure in what order, but we would call at least two bills, Bill C-58 and Bill C-81 relating to the escalation of MP's salaries. I have also indicated to the House leaders that if they wish to discuss the economic situation, or any related matters, we would be prepared to set aside a day or so for an allotted day, if that is the desire of the opposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on that latter point, we would wait until the corpus delicti returns. I should like to ask if the government House leader has confirmed that at the moment it is not the intention of the government, in the foreseeable future, to have a new session of parliament with a new throne speech debate, and the government intends to proceed according to the guidelines laid down in September, 1974, with regard to the program now on the order paper and other legislation which it might have in mind.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has tentatively decided that it would probably be very difficult to find a place before the summer adjournment for a speech from the throne debate. Moreover, a number of items of the present session remain to be dealt with, and a number of others are fairly closely related. The government might be disposed to review this decision if we make very rapid progress with what remains on the order paper at the present time. However, the House leader for the official opposition has expressed our present intentions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this does not present an opportunity to discuss the matter, but I should like it to be clear that I have already indicated our objection to the government's plan to carry on this session indefinitely. We think that the time has come for a new throne speech, a new debate and a new testing of the confidence of the House. We hope that this session will not
January 26, 1976

be continued longer than is necessary in order to deal with the items already on the order paper.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I express the hope that the day that is being suggested for discussion of economic matters might be a government day, and that the minister will not just stand and say, that the government is willing that we use one of our days. One other question, Mr. Speaker: when are we going to see the bill implementing the unanimous decision of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs regarding Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would forbear any comments on the other remarks of the hon. member, and would simply say the government has not made a decision on the final part of his question.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in our two official languages, the report of the commission of inquiry relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration in Montreal.


PORT HOPE, ONT.-TABLING OF REPORT ON RADON LEVELS AT ST. MARY'S SCHOOL
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am pleased to table a report on radon levels at St. Mary's school at Port Hope, Ontario.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 7,486 high school students of the city of Ottawa and area, in which they point out that there have been recent incidents in Canadian high schools in which firearms were used to wound and kill students and staff, that the learning atmosphere in classrooms has deteriorated, and that students and staff have the right to an educational environment which is free from fear. They therefore petition that this House enact legislation as soon as possible restricting the availability of firearms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,986, 3,111, 3,139, 3,145, 3,153,
3 157, 3,229, 3,234, 3,263, 3,307,	3,308,	3,309,	3,310,	3,333,	3,337,3,357, 3,463, 3,464, 3,466, 3,467,	3,472,	3,480,	3,489,	3,493,	3,495,3,501, 3,506, 3,509, 3,521, 3,523,	3,551,	3,555,	3,558,	3,561,	3,570,3 574 3,587, 3,589, 3,591, 3,595,	3,598,	3,600,	3,607,	3,609,	3,614,3,618, 3,620, 3,622, 3,623, 3,625,	3,633,	3,638,	3,639,	3,656,	3,659,3,660, 3,662, 3,663, 3,664, 3,668,	3,671,	3,672,	3,673,	3,675,	3,680,3,686, 3,687, 3,689, 3,690, 3,709,	3,712,	3,713,	3,714,	3,716,	3,718,3,725, 3,726, 3,728, 3,729, 3,731,	3,734,	3,735,	3,736,	3,738,	3,739,3 740, 3,741, 3,742 3,745, 3,747,	3,748,	3,749,	3,751,	3,753,	3,758,3,759, 3,760, 3,761, 3,764, 3,768,	3,770,	3,774,	3,777,	3,780,	3,783,3,787, 3,788, 3,798, 3,799, 3,805,	3,808,	3,809,	3,817,	3,818,	3,819,
3,856, 3,871, 3,873, 3,874, 3,877, 3,878, 3,879 and 3,881.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What has been the quantity of fish caught by Russian trawlers within the 200 mile limit off Canada's eastern coast for each year 1970 to 1975?
2.	What steps have been or will be taken to assure that Russian and other foreign fishing trawlers will be prevented from fishing within the 200 mile limit off Canadian coasts?
3.	What steps have been taken to limit the catch of Russian and other foreign fishing trawlers to a quantity to be set and determined by Canadian officials?
4.	What steps have been taken to assure that Canada does not operate give away programmes to Russia but makes Russia pay the full world rate with a large payment in gold?
5.	Has consideration been given in negotiating with Russia to use the sale of wheat as a bargaining point to secure the import of Russian oil at a rate below current Arab demands?
6.	(a) How much money does Canada have on loan to Russia (i) what is the interest rate (ii) what are the terms (iii) for what purpose (b) what are the details of other terms and conditions of the various loans?
7.	How much money does Canada have in loan from Russia and what are the terms and conditions?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Departments of the Environment, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Finance as follows: 1. Using data supplied by the Soviet Union to the Internation Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) on catches made within the Commission area, Canadian scientists estimate that Soviet catches within 200 miles of Canada's coast have been: 1970, 510,000 metric tons; 1971, 559,000 metric tons; 1972, 580,000 metric tons; 1973, 853,000 metric tons; 1974, 745,000 metric tons; 1975 to end of May, 227,000 metric tons.
2.	Canada intends to control foreign fishing within the 200 mile limit along the Canadian coast, but not to prevent all such fishing. At the Law of the Sea Conference, Canada is endeavouring to negotiate an international accord which will give Canada responsibility for the management and conservation of the fish stocks of a 200 mile "economic zone," and which will allow Canadian fishermen to fish to

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
their maximum capacity within conservation limits set by Canada. Foreign fishing vessels would then be allowed to fish, under terms and conditions established by the Canadian Government, within the zone for stocks surplus to Canada's needs.
3.	Soviet vessels are not permitted to fish within Canada's territorial seas and fishing zones, except for a small area of the territorial sea off the west coast, under the terms of a bilateral treaty whereby the U.S.S.R. have agreed to abstain from fishing in an area of the high seas of special importance to Canadian fishermen. On the Atlantic coast, "phasing out" and reciprocal agreements permit six other nations to fish in parts of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and parts of the outer nine miles of the territorial sea, under strict limits regarding the effort that may be employed. Beyond the territorial sea and fishing zones, the Canadian Government, at present, has no authority to control the activities of foreign fishing fleets, however, within the framework of ICNAF, quotas and other conservation measures are negotiated annually to provide for conservation of the stocks. Canada is not satisfied with the measures taken by ICNAF or with the adherence by some nations to agreed regulations. At a special meeting of ICNAF held in Montreal in September, Canada was successful in obtaining a 40 per cent reduction in foreign fishing effort for groundfish off the Canadian coast, and in having the Total Allowable catches for certain depleted stocks reduced to quantities that will allow rebuilding to higher sustainable levels.
4 and 5. The Soviet Union pays for Canadian exports in internationally accepted means of payment (fully convertible currencies) with prices determined by individual buyers and sellers at internationally competitive levels. None of our other trading partners are asked to make payment in gold and we have no reason to single out the USSR and prevent them from using the normal commercial means of payments. In any event, now that the price of gold is allowed to fluctuate according to international supply and demand it is not necessarily a more riskless form of payment than convertible currencies.
6 and 7. Nil.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	What did the government pay in land assembly costs, by item, for the Rideau Centre Project?
2.	(a) Who owns what parcels of land that are part of the Rideau Centre Project (b) what is the current market value of all such land?
3.	How much is CP Hotels paying for the land?
4.	What are the total costs, by item, for the Rideau Centre including commercial, office, transportation, utilities and land costs?
5.	What prices will prospective tenants pay for using the proposed Rideau Street Mall area and will ownership of Rideau Street remain with the government?
6.	Is Eatons of Canada being considered for location in the Rideau Centre Project and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what occupancy prices and financial arrangements are there between Eatons and the government?
7.	Which new arterial roads will be needed with the closing of Rideau Street and at what cost?
8.	Is the basis of the Rideau Centre Project acceptance of the proposed Region's southern growth satellite area?

9.	Will the Rideau Centre Project have any residential units as part of its development and, if so (a) how many, what type, etc. (b) what are the reasons for such inclusion or exclusion?
10.	Will there be sufficient open space in the Rideau Centre Project and, if so, how much?
11.	Is one million square feet of office space needed in the Rideau Centre Project and, if so (a) for what reason (b) does this substantially increase the density of downtown Ottawa?
12.	What is the optimum density of downtown Ottawa according to project planners?
13.	Was public involvement in planning the Rideau Centre started a few years ago at the Project's beginning and, if not, for what reason?
14.	What is public involvement in the Project meant to accomplish?
15.	(a) Which groups will benefit and in what way from the Rideau Centre Project (b) which groups will not?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. In addition to original Crown lands by right of conquest, the cost of the federal lands in the federal development area approximates $3,045,000. * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Note: Boundaries of the federal development area are Rideau Street, Colonel By Drive, Mackenzie King Bridge, Nicholas Street, Besserer Street and Freiman Street. The extent of a larger redevelopment area depends on interest shown by the private sector, the City of Ottawa and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.
2.	(a) Land is now owned in federal development area by: National Capital Commission, 4.42 acres; Dept, of Public Works, 1.63 acres; Dept, of Indian and Northern Affairs, 4.50 acres; City of Ottawa, 1.07 acres, (b) Current market value of federal lands in the federal development area is estimated at $25-30 million.
3.	CP Hotels are expected to lease their site at market rates as one part of a comprehensive plan.
4.	Total costs are not known at this time. The Rideau Centre Planning Team is in the process of assembling such cost estimates.
5.	Current commercial rental rates will apply to prospective tenants. Rideau Street, now a regional road under the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, is expected to be transferred to the City of Ottawa and will not be subject to federal intervention.
6.	Yes. (a) A major department store is considered to be essential to any strong regional commercial centre such as Rideau Centre, (b) An agreement is currently being negotiated between DPW and Eaton's for the construction of commercial space and some office accommodation to be built on land leased from the federal government.
7.	A short section of Waller Street will need improvement as an arterial road. Costs are subject to continuing negotiations referred to under part 4 above.
8.	No.
9.	(a) None on the federal land portion. Rehabilitation of some Lower Town West and Sandy Hill residential areas is within the total development area, (b) Residential construction is not considered the best land use for federal lands, although the hotel represents a form of residential use. The City of Ottawa has identified adjacent residential sites.
January 26, 1976

10.	Yes. Approximately 3 acres of federal land will be open space in keeping with a strong orientation to pedestrian attraction.
11.	Yes. (a) Office space is needed to meet DPW accommodation forecasts. The Rideau Centre location of federal offices will help correct the imbalance between the downtown area south and south-west of Parliament Hill and the east side of the Rideau Canal, (b) No.
12.	Clarification is required to answer this question.
13.	Citizens representing property owners, tenants and business groups have been informed and have had membership on the Planning Team for over two years. There has been direct public representation through the Federation of Citizens Associations since May, 1975.
14.	Public involvement is intended to provide information and a better understanding of the proposals, together with the opportunity for citizen critique and input from private sector interests and the community at large.
15.	(a) Canadians generally will benefit through creation of an exemplary urban environment for the National Capital in a location adjacent to Parliament Hill. Rideau Centre will benefit both the City of Ottawa and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton as well as the whole National Capital Region by reversing the relative decline of the Rideau sector of the Core Area through an increase in the assessment base and additional business revenues. Rideau Centre will reinforce the urban heritage value of the Byward Market-Sussex Drive area and support the objectives of heritage groups. Rideau Centre can become a useful example for citizen and planning groups elsewhere in Canada through its planning process and its design product, as the result of federal-municipal-citizen joint participation, (b) It is difficult to determine any groups that will be affected adversely by the development.


Mr. Brisco: Did the government forward the Salt Water Fishing Regulations for British Columbia for 1975 to the British Columbia Department of Recreation and Conservation for publication in provincial fishing regulations and, if so, on what date?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: No.
The Salt Water Fishing Regulations, both commercial and sport, and any regulations pertaining to salmon sports fishing in B.C., wherever conducted, are administered by the Federal Government, and are summarized for easy reference by the public in publications issued each spring by the Fisheries and Marine Service of the Department of the Environment in Vancouver.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How many films were purchased by CBC from foreign producers, both independents and foreign broadcasting companies, in 1973 and 1974?
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many films were purchased from independent Canadian film producers for use by CBC in 1973, 1974 and in each month of 1975 to date?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. 1973, English and French networks-2,027; 1974, English and French networks-2,197.
2.	Canadian films purchased by English and French networks from independent Canadian film producers, either directly or through a film distributor: 1973, 1,518; 1974, 934; 1975 (to October), 938.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the cost to date of the "Why not-Pourquoi pas" Programme?
2.	How much of the money has been for (a) buttons (b) newspaper ads (c) radio ads (d) television ads?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. As of December 1, 1975: $948,155 (This includes the total advertising program as well as materials such as buttons, stickers, posters, information kits, etc. These materials were mailed out in response to the print advertisement coupons and to direct requests. They were distributed as well by field staff, etc.).
2.	(a) $62,224; (b), (c), (d) See answer to Parliamentary Enquiry 1,829, part 2, tabled in the House on April 17, 1975.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For each year 1973 and 1974, what was the total budget of CBC (a) English network <b) French network?
2.	For the same years, how many persons were employed in CBC (a) English network (b) French network and, in each case, how many were classified as bilingual?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1. (a) and (b)		(i)
Fiscal year 1973-74		Budget ($000s)
English Services Division	(ii)	148,532French Services Division	(ii)	95,598Ottawa Area	(hi)	9,206Fiscal year 1974-75 English Services Division	171,055French Services Division	105,143Ottawa Area	11,004Fiscal year 1974-75: English Services	Division,	171,055;French Services Division, 105,143; Ottawa Area, 11,004.	Notes: (i) The figures for budgets represent the	cost of
producing and distributing programs to CBC-owned-and-operated and affiliated stations, together with the general

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
administrative costs of the respective divisions, (ii) Both the English Services Division and the French Services Division have under their general administrative control, at certain locations, stations producing and/or broadcasting in the other official language. Related costs are reflected in the budgets of the division exercising such administrative control, (iii) The figures for the English Services Division and the French Services Division do not include the budgets for the CBC's English and French television and radio stations in the administratively distinct Ottawa Area, where English and French production are approximately the same.
2.	(a) and (b) English Services Division: 1973, 4,786; 1974, 4,970. French Services Division: 1973, 3,306; 1974, 3,495. Ottawa Area: 1973, 484; 1974, 510. CBC employment records have not been maintained in a manner which would enable the corporation to extract readily and without an inordinate amount of time, work and cost, information about the mother tongue and language proficiencies of its employees. In addition, since the corporation's records do not necessarily contain the requested information, the final answer would not be complete.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total estimated cost of the new Bank of Canada Building on Wellington Street?
2.	What is the estimated cost of (a) site acquisition (b) architectural design (c) mechanical and electrical engineering services (d) foundation and structure (e) landscaping and interior design, including the connecting link with the existing Bank Building?
3.	What are the names of the firms who have been awarded contracts in Part 2 (b) (c) (d) and (e)?
4.	(a) What was the purchase price of the site (b) from whom was it purchased (c) how was the decision reached as to the cost of the property?
5.	What is the estimated (a) annual operating cost of the Building (b) total amount of useable floor space?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: 1.
The plans for the additions to the Bank of Canada building on Wellington Street in Ottawa were approved by the Bank's Board in January 1972. The additions were designed to preserve the existing building and to permit the consolidation in one complex of all the Ottawa operations of the Bank, including those now housed in the Bank's King Edward Avenue building and in a number of temporary locations. The first and major phase of the work is now nearly ready for occupancy. When completed the additions will consist of below-grade space (three floors in most parts) for the entire area bounded by Wellington, Bank, Sparks and Kent Streets except for that part already occupied by the basement of the existing building, two twelve-storey towers flanking the existing building, and a garden court and bridges connecting the three buildings. The additional area will include 30,000 square feet gross of prime vault space, 246,000 square feet gross of other space below grade (to be occupied in due course by up to 300 persons engaged for the most part in high-security work),
13,000	square feet of garden court, 5,000 square feet of connecting bridges, 436,000 square feet gross of other enclosed space on and above grade, and some 60,000 square feet of open space on grade level. The additions will con

tain about 11.2 million cubic feet. The total cost of constructing the additions (exclusive of site purchase, architectural costs, landscaping, and interior partitions, furniture and furnishings and special-purpose built-in equipment) is currently estimated to be $45 million. Of this amount $29.5 million has been contracted for at fixed price contracts as a result of tenders, with a further $14.9 million contracted for on the basis of a guaranteed upset price with 75 percent of any savings being for the benefit of the Bank. The current estimate of $45 million compares with the estimate of $36 million released by the Board of the Bank in October 1971, the difference being due to the extent of about one-half to subsequent additions to the work planned and one-half to higher costs than originally anticipated. The land and buildings surrounded by Wellington, Bank, Sparks and Kent Streets were purchased by the Bank of Canada in ten transactions from 1936 to 1964. The area involved is 114,550 square feet. In the case of each individual purchase the price was negotiated following independent professional appraisal. The existing head-office building of the Bank, which was built in 1937/38, is being preserved but it will require some exterior changes and extensive interior renovation and modification to integrate it with the new buildings. The cost of architectural services, including structural, mechanical and electrical designs, for the additions is estimated to be $2.7 million. The architects are the associated firms of Marani, Rounth-waite & Dick, and Erickson & Associates, and they engaged and paid the consulting firms of C.D. Carruthers & Wallace, Ardec Consulting Engineers, and Brais, Frigon, Hanley & Assoc. Ltd. for structural, mechanical and electrical design services. The cost of services of other outside consultants involved in the construction and inspections of the building is estimated to be $400,000; this amount includes the services of van der Meulen & Associates, landscape architects. The prime contractors to date have been V.K. Mason Construction Ltd. for excavation work and Ellis-Don Ltd. for the construction. The contract with Mason Construction Ltd. was let in December 1971, and with Ellis-Don Ltd. for work on the sub-structure in June 1972 and for work on the superstructure in May 1973 and in December 1975. Landscaping costs for the Bank's own project are estimated to be $685,000. The Bank is in addition sharing with the Department of Public Works and the City of Ottawa the cost of developing the Sparks Street Mall between Bank Street and Kent Street. The interior partitions, furniture and furnishings, and special-purpose built-in equipment for the additions, including six pollution-free incinerators for burning soiled and worn bank notes, cancelled coupons and cancelled bonds, and a highly specialized system for vault and building security, are estimated to cost $6 million. The interior design is by the associated architectural firms of Marani, Rounthwaite & Dick, and Erickson & Associates.
2,	3 and 4. See answer to question 1.
5.	(a) No estimate is provided of the "annual operating cost" of the finished complex, in part because of the problem of knowing what expenses to include. The operating costs of the complex will be higher than for a typical office building of similar size because of its high security requirements. Because of the type of construction the maximum heating and cooling loads of the above-grade additions will exceed those of a conventional office building,
January 26, 1976

but the reverse will be the case for the considerable proportion of the total working area that is below grade. The heating and cooling systems have been designed to provide greater than average flexibility of operation and the annual energy consumption of the entire complex is not expected by the designers to differ appreciably from that of a conventional building large enough to provide comparable facilities for the Bank's staff and operations, (b) See answer to question 1.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	How much has the meat packing industry paid to the Health of Animals Branch, Department of Agriculture, for overtime services of the Department's veterinary inspectors and primary products inspectors for the fiscal years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75?
2.	How much control does the Health of Animals Branch have over their employees' overtime in the Meat Inspection Division?


Eugene Whelan: 1. 1972-73, $1,438,000; 1973-74, $1,690,000; 1974-75, $2,571,000.
2.	Employees' overtime in the Meat Inspection Division is based solely upon demands of the registered meat plant which must be served in accordance with the Meat Inspection Regulations. There is, therefore, no basic control available to the Health of Animals Branch.


Mr. Mazankowski: For the years 1970 to 1974, what was the total revenue derived from the shipment of grain on the CN Coronado Subdivision and the CN Bonnyville Subdivision?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Coronado: 1970, $765,745; 1971, $538,151; 1972, $621,577; 1973, $428,469; 1974, $427,367. Bonnyville: 1970, $251,160; 1971, $138,943; 1972, $168,945; 1973, $133,584; 1974, $134,849.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Under the terms of the Project Grant Programme for literary efforts, how many manuscripts were (a) submitted (b) accepted for a grant in each year 1970 to 1975?
2.	How many persons were employed to assess the manuscripts and what were their names and qualifications?
3.	What is the average time taken to assess each manuscript?
4.	How many manuscripts took more than (a) six months (b) one year (c) eighteen months (d) two years from the date they were submitted until the assessment was completed?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows: (a) The exact figures are not available; in general two manuscripts were submitted for each one accepted, (b) 1970-71, 103; 1971-72, 161; 1972-73, 86; 1973-74, 47; 1974-75, 41.
2.	Since 1970 over 200 persons, selected among Canadian writers and critics and among professors of Canadian literature in Canadian universities were consulted. A complete list of their names and qualifications is not readily available, and could be obtained only at prohibitive expense.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Each manuscript is submitted to two or three assessors; it takes three weeks on the average, for an assessor to read a book.
4.	The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at prohibitive expense.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How many books published by Sono Nis Press of Delta, British Columbia, were submitted to the Canada Council for consideration for the Governor General's Awards for Literature in 1972, 1973 and 1974?
2.	For each year, were any of the books reviewed by the judges and (a) if so, how many (b) if not, for what reason?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1 and 2. The Canada Council entertains no formal submissions in relation to the Governor General's Literary Awards, since the jury responsible for selecting the winning books is expected to review all books by Canadian Authors published during the year. However, the Council's records show that in 1971 and 1972, Sono Nis Press sent lists of eligible books to the Council, and these were brought to the attention of the jury chairman.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How many times was a collection of fiction by Andreas Sehroeder entitled The Last Man submitted to the Canada Council as a project for an aid to publications grant?
2.	Had any of the pieces in the collection been previously published in Canada Council subsidized reviews or anthologies?
3.	Did the Canada Council purchase copies of the book from Sono Nis Press and (a) if so, was the full price paid for the copies (b) if not, for what reason?
4.	Does the Canada Council circulate the book in Canada or abroad?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. A collection of fiction by Andreas Sehroeder entitled "The Late Man" (and not "The Last Man") has been submitted twice to the Canada Council.
2.	The Canada Council does not have this information. No control is exercised over the material published in Council subsidized reviews. In the case of anthologies, assessors consider the overall quality of the project but not each item.
3.	Yes; (a) Purchase was made under the Council's Book Purchase Program. The Canada Council is granted a 20 per cent discount by publishers whose books are bought and distributed under this program, (b) Not applicable.
4.	Yes, this book is distributed both in Canada and abroad, under the Council's Book Purchase Program.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How many of the judges or adjudicators of Canada Council awards or grants were (a) not Canadian (b) Canadian citizen in (i) 1970 (ii) 1971 (hi) 1972 (iv) 1973 (v) 1974 (vi) 1975?

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	Did Mr. Warren Tallman ever serve as a judge or adjudicator for Canada Council awards or grants and, if so, for what period of time?
3.	Was Mr. Tallman a landed immigrant at the time and, if so, how long had he held such status?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Canada Council and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. Canada Council adjudicators have been Canadian citizens, or landed immigrants for several years, selected for their knowledge of Canadian literature. Specific information on the citizenship status of each is not available.
2.	Yes. Mr. Tallman served on a jury for the Governor General's Literary Awards in 1970.
3.	Warren Eugene Tallman became a landed immigrant in Canada on October 7, 1958.


Mr, Beatty: 1. What office space besides that on the 54th floor of the Toronto-Dominion Centre is being rented, has been rented at any time since
Toronto-Dominion Centre Royal Trust Tower 55 King Street West
Lease No.	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)41032	1970	External Affairs	15/01/70	Passport, application and processing41128	1970	Industry Trade and Commerce	15/12/70	Liaison (Now External Affairs Passports-01/11/74)41439	1974	Industry Trade and Commerce	01/11/74	Liaison OfficeLease No. being assigned	1975	Finance	01/11/75	Anti Inflation Board
1968, or is currently expected to be rented by the government in the Toronto-Dominion Centre, Commerce Court or the new Bank of Montreal complex in Toronto, Ontario?
2. In each case (a) when was the space first leased (b) by which department was it used or was it to be used (c) on what date was it first leased (d) for what purpose was it used or to be used (e) what was the cost per assignable square foot when it was first leased (f) what is the present cost per assignable square foot (g) on what date was the present lease signed and what is its duration (h) on what floor(s) was space being rented and in which building was it being rented (i) how many square feet was being rented or is to be rented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Commerce Court King and Bay Streets Toronto, Ontario.
Lease No	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)41487	1974	Industry Trade and Commerce	15/03/74	Regional Office41299	1972	Post Office	01/09/72	Post Office
Order Paper Questions
(e)	(f)	(g)	(h)	(i)lst-3rd year 8.39 4th and 5th year 6 50 plus 22.84 per cent of Taxes	14.56	01/04/74 5 years + 3 years 7'/$ months Option	51st	5,5724.00	4.50	01/09/72 15 years	Service Level	3.265
note: Lease #414B7 Base rent is made up of $8.39 per square foot for years 1 to 3, plus 22.84 per cent of taxes charged to 51st floor. Then $6.50 per square foot for years 4 and 5, plus 22.84 per cent of taxes charged.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of October 31, 1975, what was the number of Canadians accredited as diplomats in (a) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (b) Czechoslovakia (c) Poland (d) Hungary (e) Romania (f) East Germany (g) Cuba?
2.	As of October 31, 1975, how many representatives of (a) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (b) Czechoslovakia (c) Poland (d) Hungary (e) Romania (f) East Germany (g) Cuba were accredited as diplomats of that country in Canada?


Monique Bégin: 1. (a) 13. (b) 5.
(c)	9. (d) 4. (e) 11-accredited to Romania, but resident in Belgrade, Yugoslavia and Vienna, Austria, (f) none, (g) 6.
2.	(a) 31. (b) 6. (c) 15. (d) 5. (e) 6. (f) none, (g) 9.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the government maintain permanent reservations at any hotels in the National Capital Region for the use of, or disposition by, Members of the Cabinet or any other government personnel or departments and, if so (a) what hotels (b) in each case, how many such permanent reservations are being held (c) what is the total cost per year at each hotel (d) are rooms paid for whether occupied or not (e) what are the names of all government personnel and departments so involved?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The Central Travel Service does not maintain permanent reservations at any hotel in the National Capital Region for the use of, or disposition by, members of the cabinet, any other government personnel or departments.


Mr. Howie: How many persons were employed by CBC Radio at (a) Fredericton (b) Moncton (c) Halifax (d) Sydney on January 1 (i) 1970 (ii) 1972 (iii) 1974 (iv) 1975?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: the employees answering through the radio line of
authority in Fredericton,	Moncton,	Halifax	and Sydney	are:	(i)	(ii)	(iii)	(iv)As of January 31	1970	1972	1974	1975(a) Fredericton	25	29	29	29(b) Moncton	21	15	17	17(c) Halifax	31	30	54	64(d) Sydney	22	22	21	23
The above figures do not include employees who, at some of the locations listed, may be required to perform duties in either radio or television.


Mr. Howie: How much has been paid to subsidize the growing of tobacco in Canada in each fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1970 (b) 1972 (c) 1974 (d)1975?


Eugene Whelan: In so far
as Agriculture Canada is concerned, the answer is- (a) to
(d), Nil.

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions TOTAL VALUE OF CANADA'S EXPORT TRADE


Mr. Howie: 1.	(a) What was the total value of Canada's export trade for the year 1974 (b) how much was with the (i) USA (ii) European Common Market countries?
2.	How much involved manufactured goods sold to the (a) USA (b) European Common Market countries?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: As far as Statistics Canada is concerned: 1. (a) The total value of Canada's merchandise exports in the year 1974 was $32,177 million, (b) (i) and (ii) Of this amount, $21,325 million was sold to the USA and $4,047 million to the European Common Market.
2. (a) Fully manufactured goods (end products) sold to the USA amounted to $8,543 million, (b) The value of end products sold to the Community was $490 million.
In addition to the above data the table below provides additional information on federal and provincial government expenditure by type of expenditure for 1974.
Federal	PerCent	Provincial	Per Cent1974	($millions)	of G.N.P.	($millions)	of G.N.P.Current and Capital Expenditure on Goods and Services	8335	5.92	9511	6.75Transfer Payments to Persons <*>	8712	6.18	4244	3.01Tranfer Payments to Business <2>	2206	1.57	645	0.46Current Transfers to Non-Residents <3)	400	0.28	Interest on the Public Debt	2961	2.10	1503	1.07Transfers to Other Levels of Government (4>	6146	4.36	8954	6.35Total	28760	20.41	24857	17.64


Mr. Howie: How much has been expended to discourage the use of tobacco products in each fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1970 (b) 1972 (c) 1974 (d) 1975?


Marc Lalonde: 
Mr. Schumacher: How much did the (a) government (b) provincial governments spend in total, per capita, for each year (i) 1934 (ii) 1944 (iii) 1954 (iv) 1964 (v) 1974 in current dollars?
<3>
Includes foreign aid and development assistance and pensions paid abroad.
<4>
At the federal level includes transfers to provincial and local governments. Provincial transfers include transfers to local governments, including school corporations, and the hospitals.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. (a) and (b) Total federal and provincial government expenditures, on a national accounts basis, per capita and in current dollars for selected years are as follows:
	Total Federal	Total Provincial
	Expenditures	Expenditures
	Per Capita	Per Capita
1934	$ 38	$ 351944	445	401954	304	1051964	415	2841974	1281	1107Total federal and provincial government expenditure as a percentage of gross national product at market prices for	the same years are as follows:	Total Federal	Total ProvincialExpenditures	ExpendituresPer Cent	Per Cent1934	10.30	9.601944	44.90	3.981954	17.96	6.201964	15.93	10.911974	20.41	17.64


Mr. Gilbert: Has a grant under Part V of the National Housing Act been given to the Urban Research Council of Canada (formerly the Canadian Council on Urban and Regional Research) by the (a) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (b) Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and, if so, in each case, what was the contribution for each fiscal year such grant was made?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a) The following grants have been made to the Urban Research Council of Canada, under Part V of the National Housing Act, from 1962-1971.
Year	Amount $
1962	78,000
1963	85,000
1964	92,000
1965	104,000
1966	109,000

January 26, 1976

Year	Amount $
1967	105,000
1968	146,000
1969	242,400
1970	150,000
1971	455,000
These grants were used to provide partial operational support, partially to cover the costs of the design of an urban information system and the provision of a computerized bibliographic service, (b) 1973-74, $407,879.00; 1974-75, $465,753.91; 1975-76, $80,000.00 (as of November 5, 1975).


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the number of personnel that CBC has in foreign countries?
2.	How many are receiving housing or apartment subsidies and, in each case (a) what is the total amount of rent (b) what amount of (i) rent is paid by the employee (ii) the subsidy is paid by CBC?
3.	Is a rent subsidy paid to employees and, if so, for what reason?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. 28.
2.	27. (a), (b), (i), (ii): (See following chart).
3.	Yes. Full-time CBC employees abroad are on a foreign-allowance system based on the allowance paid to certain categories of employees of the Department of External Affairs. The CBC employee is charged the amount of rent he or she would normally pay in metropolitan Ottawa and the CBC pays the difference. Since it
would be	more expensive for the CBC to	pay formoving of	employees	furniture to foreign	locations,almost all cases, furnished accommodation is rented.	Rental Allowance by Month for full-time CBC Employees Posted Abroad as of October 1975 Actual Own Share Difference	1	1,333.12	301.00	1,032.122	922.58	264.00	658.583	805.80	161.00	644.804	1,545.70	264.00	1,281.705	1,413.00	167.00	1,246.006	1,396.95	301.00	1,095.957	263.00	250.00	13.008	446.25	152.00	294.259	1,417.50	167.00	1,250.5010	533.61	147.00	386.6111	603.75	167.00	436.7512	409.50	141.00	268.5013	551.25	272.00	279.2514	630.00	272.00	358.0015	735.00	217.00	518.0016	328.65	156.00	172.6517	600.60	264.00	336.6018	483.00	264.00	219.0019	741.87	274.00	467.87
Order Paper Questions
Actual	Own Share	Difference20	486.85	160.00	326.8521	486.85	272.00	214.8522	973.70	264.00	709.7023	973.70	264.00	709.7024	1,112.80	283.00	829.8025	727.60	272.00	455.6026	880.97	147.00	733.9727	880.97	264.00	616.9721,684.57	6,127.00	15,557.57
Note: Several of the above items reflect on the one hand, the difference between accommodation for a married and single employee in so far as the "own share" formula is concerned and, on the other hand the increase in actual rents over the past four years whereby single accommodation is now as expensive as family accommodation acquired under the terms of a much earlier lease.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	For each month April, May and June, 1975, how much money was spent by CBC on the purchase of television pieces from freelancers for national news or other national information programmes and by province how many pieces were purchased in that period?
2.	Does CBC have a policy respecting the purchase of television pieces from freelancers for (a) national news (b) other national information programmes and, if so, what is such policy?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. English network: April, 3 items, $8,200; May, 5 items, $3,300; June, 4 items, $15,375. Origin: 8 items from Ontario; 4 items from outside Canada. French network: April, 5 items, $4,276; May, 6 items, $4,473; June, 4 items, $1,305. Origin: all from outside Canada. The above figures include lengthy as well as brief items.
2. CBC's policy is to consider every freelance offer, and pieces are bought and used if they are (a) judged worthwhile from a program point of view, (b) of acceptable quality, and (c) obtainable at acceptable cost.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does Air Canada provide service to Trois-Rivieres Airport and (a) if so, what is the cost per year (b) if not (i) for what reason (ii) on what date was the service discontinued?
2.	How many passengers have been registered since the inception of the service?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. No, (a) Not applicable, (b) (i) Lack of traffic, (ii) December 3, 1971
2. During the period when a scheduled service was operated between September 3, 1963, and December 31, 1971, a total of 7,496 passengers were boarded and 8,662 deplaned at Trois-Rivieres.
10280
January 26, 1976

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Fortin: X. Does the Queen's Printer or any other government agent intend to sell at low price records or other instruments for the study of French or English and, if not, for what reason?
2. Does the government have a policy to make culture accessible to low income people and, if so, what is it?


John Carr Munro: In so far as Information Canada is concerned, the answers are as follows: 1. No records are available, but there is a complete course with text (publications), tapes, test sheets and matrix to verify answers. This course is prepared and supplied to Information Canada by the Public Service Commission. The selling price is $415, based on costs plus mark-up for our cost-recovery/revolving fund program.
2. No.


Mr. Fortin: Since 1968 (a) how much money was spent for public works in the Constituency of Lotbiniere (b) what was, in each case, the (i) nature of the project (ii) amount involved?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: "General Records Disposal Schedules of Government of Canada"- Amendment No. 3 requires that records be kept for six complete years. Therefore, the information requested for
1968-	69 is unavailable, (a) Expenditures in the constituency of Lotbiniere for public works by year were as follows:
1969-	70, $252,309; 1970-71, $453,145; 1971-72, $266,964; 1972-73, $547,840; 1973-74, $591,079; 1974-75, $164,981; 1975-76 to September 30, 1975, $45,068. (b) Departmental records are maintained on an individual basis only for projects costing
in excess of $5,000. Details of these follow:			Total
(i) Location	Description	Year Completed	(ii) ExpenditureDeschaillons	Construction of a Post Office	1969-70	$ 48,814Deschaillons	Construction of a protection wall	1971-72	9,468Deschaillons	Raising of a protection wall	1972-73	7,663Lotbiniere	Trans Canada Highway (through the constituency)	1970-71	516,817 (for 1969-70 and 1970-71)Princeville	Additions and alterations to Post Office	1969-70	59,732Princeville	Renovations to Post Office	1971-72	11,235Riviere Bois-Construction of a Post clair Office	1969-70	41,418St. Antoine Tilley	deConstruction of a Post Office	1975-76	5,952Ste-Eulalie	Construction of a Post Office	1975-76	13,361Victoriaville	Construction of a public building	1973-74	1,064,708Victoriaville	Loading platform- public building	1975-76	9,132Warwick	Air-conditioning- public building	1971-72	37,146Warwick	Improvements to heating system-public building	1971-72	5,883


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government aware of the cost in 1974 of shipping by sea Canadian grain to other countries, and (a) if so, what was it (b) if not, for what reason?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as
the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned export sales of wheat, oats and barley are sold on either an instore terminal position or FOB basis at all Canadian seaboard positions. Ocean freight costs therefore are borne by the purchaser and the cost in 1974 of shipping such grain by sea to other countries is not known.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	What import quotas in terms of volume of goods have been established on clothing from (a) Hong Kong (b) Taiwan (c) USA?
2.	Is it to the advantage of Canadian importers to have clothing manufactured in Hong Kong or Taiwan imported directly into Canada and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Is there a greater advantage to Canadian importers to have such goods imported into the USA and then into Canada and ,(a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, for what reason?


Marcel-Claude Roy: 1. A global import quota of 1,416,690 dozen men's and boys' shirts with tailored collars, priced under $30 per dozen for wovens and $33 per dozen for knitted, is in effect from November 30, 1974 to November 29, 1975. This quota is divided into 11 "country reserves" totalling 950,925 dozen shirts, utilizable only by the exporting countries holding these reserves, and an "open portion" of 465,765 dozen shirts, utilizable by any country, including those which hold "country reserves", (a) Hong Kong's reserve is 205,125 dozen shirts, (b) Taiwan's reserve is 137,188 dozen shirts, (c) USA has no reserve. As well, Hong Kong maintains an export authorization system limiting its exports to Canada of trousers, slacks and shorts, woven of cotton, polyester, and polyes-ter/cotton to 404,815 dozen pairs from October 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976. Similarly, Taiwan has undertaken to restrain its exports to Canada of trousers, slacks and shorts of all genders, all fibres, woven or knitted, at 958,000 dozen pairs during calendar year 1975.
2.	For customs purposes the country of origin is determined by the percentage of value added. An article of clothing, the major part of which has country X value added, will be treated as an export from that country regardless of the country from which it has finally been exported from. There are no significant advantages to shipping goods via a third country with the possible exception of savings on transportation.
3.	Refer to answer to question number two.

January 26, 1976


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	For how many days was the Conference on World Population held in Bucharest in September 1974?
2.	What was the composition of the Canadian delegation?
3.	Were all delegates in attendance throughout the Conference and, if not (a) what were the variations in attendance (b) what were the itineraries or activities of those not in full attendance?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The dates of the World Population Conference were August 19-30 inclusive.
2.	The composition of the Canadian delegation was as follows: Chairman of the Delegation: The Hon. Jeanne Sauve, Minister of the Environment. Representatives: The Hon. William J. Yurko, Minister of the Environment, Province of Alberta. The Hon. Stanley Haidasz, M.P. ViceChairman: Mr. J. E. G. Hardy, Director-General, Bureau of United Nations Affairs, Department of External Affairs. Alternate Representatives: Mr. Ranjit Azad, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Labour, Province of British Columbia. Mr. Francis J. Bogdasavich, Deputy Minister, Department of Culture and Youth, Province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Bernard Bonin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of Immigration of Quebec, Province of Quebec. Mr. Earl Drake, Vice-President, Canadian International Development Agency. Mr. Alan Gordon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Province of Ontario. Mrs. Martha Hynna, coordinator, Status of Women, Privy Council Office. Dr. David Munro, Director-General, Environment Canada. Mrs. Freda Palti-el, Special Adviser on the Welfare and Social Status of Women, Department of National Health and Welfare. Mr. T. B. Sheehan, Director-General, Home Service, Department of Manpower and Immigration. Mr. Andrew Welles, Principal Secretary to the Premier, Province of Prince Edward Island. Special Advisers: Ms. Wendy Dobson, Assistant to the Chairman, International Development Research Centre. Dr. H. Henripin, Demographer, University of Montreal. Dr. Andre Lux, Special Adviser to the President on Population, Canadian International Development Agency. Dr. Henry Regier, Chairman, Department of Zoology, University of Toronto. Advisers: Mr. Blake Houss-er, Special Assignments Officer, Department of Social Services, Province of Nova Scotia. Mr. Gerald W. Smith, Director of Administration, Department of Justice, Province of Newfoundland. Miss Bethany Armstrong, United Nations Economic and Social Affairs Division, Department of External Affairs. Mr. Glen Milne, Office of the Privy Council. Mr. Richard Burkart, United Nations Economic and Social Affairs Division, Department of External Affairs. Mr. Y. Jobin, Department of External Affairs. Ms. Lynn Douglas, Environment Canada. Mr. Ivan Timonin, Department of Manpower and Immigration. Mr. David Wright, Department of External Affairs. Mr. Ed Aiston, Health and Welfare Canada. 3
3.	The Hon. Madame J. Sauve attended the conference during the first week after which time she departed Bucharest. Mr. Earl Drake, Vice President of CIDA, arrived in Bucharest for the second week of the conference direct from a meeting in Rome.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Andre (Calgary Centre): Is the Canadian Transport Commission responsible lor establishing the rates charged by the Northern Transportation Company Limited and, if so, what procedures are used by CTC in order to establish such rates?


Ralph Goodale: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: We are not responsible for establishing rates charged by the Northern Transportation Company Limited. However, some categories of tariffs of tolls which are charged by a carrier are subject to approval by the Commission pursuant to Part III of the Transport Act.


Mr. MacLean: For the years 1974 and 1975, in the case of the Wood Islands-Caribou Ferry Service and the service operating between Souris, Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands, what was the amount of subsidy in each case (a) requested by the operating companies (b) recommended by the Canadian Transport Commission (c) granted by Treasury Board?


Ralph Goodale: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Wood Islands-Caribou Service: (a)
1974,	$2,399,993; 1975, $3,457,465. (b) 1974, $2,400,000; 1975, $3,456,440. (c) 1974, $2,400,000; 1975, $2,600,000. Souris, P.E.I.-Magdalen Islands, Que. Service: (a) 1974, $704,548;
1975,	$1,194,148; (b) 1974, $705,000; 1975, $1,141,396. (c) 1974, $705,000; 1975, $1,141,396.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How much money has been given to Canada World Youth by CIDA in the past two years?
2.	How much money has been given to Canada World Youth by the Department of External Affairs and through what programmes during the past four years?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned:
1.	April 1, 1974-March 31, 1975, $2,800,000; April 1, 1975-to date, $2,500,000.
2.	The Department of External Affairs has not given money to Canada World Youth during the past four years.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What is the (a) per capita value (b) gross value of sale of arms and arms components by Canada?
2.	Does Canada rank sixth in the world in value of arms sales?
3.	Is the Canadian Commercial Corporation the government agency which negotiates the sale of arms?
4.	Is consideration being given by the United Nations to an international agency for monitoring the sale of arms?
21130-2 9'/2

Order Paper Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Supply and Services and External Affairs as follows: 1. (a) $12.25 (1974) (Canadian population taken as 22.9M). (b) Defence export sales by Canada in 1974 amounted to 280.5M. This figure was compiled on a contract basis (prime and sub-contracts) and includes applied research and development, pre-production, production, licence agreements and technical assistance, installation (other than construction) and repair, overhaul and modification. "Off-the-shelf" general procurement, construction, fuels and lubricants, basic raw materials, and services (such as rentals and transportation) have been excluded. Defence equipment sold by Canada has for the most part been items having a high technological content and includes such items as aircraft, aircraft engines and spares, airframe and engine components and spares, flight simulators, reconnaissance drones and spares, navigation and communication equipment and spares, avionics, marine valves, sonar equipment, ammunition and components, and vehicle parts and spares.
2.	The precise ranking of the value of military equipment sales by any country varies depending on the source of statistics used to arrive at the ranking. There are considerable variations in statistics emanating from different sources depending on the definitions and methods of compilation used, and uniformity and reliability is difficult to assess. The ranking of countries also changes from year to year. The four acknowledged world leaders in defence export sales are US, USSR, France and Britain. Several orders of magnitude below these countries is a group of countries consisting of Canada, Sweden, Italy, Czechoslovakia and China (PRC) whose estimated annual defence export sales over the last 10 years would rank them somewhere in the range of fifth to ninth depending on the year concerned.
3.	The Canadian Commercial Corporation has not been delegated responsibility by the Government to negotiate the sale of arms to overseas governments. However, from time to time, the Corporation does receive requests for such requirements from foreign governments and their agencies all of which are subject to the export control regulations of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is to be noted that any such sales are strictly on a government-to-government basis and that the Corporation does not deal with any private firms or overseas commercial trading organizations.
4.	At present, there is no resolution before the United Nations for an international agency to monitor the sale of arms. In 1965-66 Denmark, Iceland, Malta and Norway sponsored a draft resolution to ascertain the position of governments concerning a proposal to register trade in arms with the Secretary-General. Canada supported this resolution but it was defeated, primarily at the instigation of many developing countries. This proposal was revived by Denmark in 1968 but the opposition was such that it was withdrawn prior to a vote. In 1968, the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, in his statement to the Twenty-third U.N. General Assembly, drew attention to the suffering caused by traffic in conventional arms. In 1971, the Secretary-General of the U.N. commissioned a report on the "Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race and of

Military Expenditures", which report was subsequently presented to the Twenty-sixth Session of the General Assembly as Document A/C.1/L.593. It was passed and was subsequently incorporated in Resolution 2831 (XXVI) which in summary was a resolution to keep a watching brief on specified consequences of the arms race. To date, unfortunately, all efforts to give substantive monitoring support to this resolution, through an arms register under U.N. auspices, have been opposed by a majority of member states.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	For 1974, what was the average length of a sponsored film for a department and what was the average cost of such productions?
2.	For 1974, what was the average length of films produced by the private sector for departments and what was the cost of sudh productions?
3.	How many of the films produced by the National Film Board in 1973 and 1974 had production costs in the range of (a) $1,000 to $5,000 (b) $5,000 to $12,000 (c) $12,000 to $20,000 (d) $20,000 to $50,000 (e) $50,000 to $100,000 (f) $100,000 to $250,000 (g) $250,000 to $500,000 (h) over $500,000 and, in each case, how many were government sponsored?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. For 1974 average length of a sponsored film was 24 minutes and average cost was $53,025.
2.	For 1974 the average length of film produced by the private sector for departments was 17 minutes and the average cost per film was $13,065.
3.	Number of films produced by the National Film Board in 1973-74 and 1974-75 in each of the following cost ranges and number government sponsored:
Government
	Total	Sponsored
$ 1,000 to 5,000	8	35,000 to 12,000	11	412,000 to 20,000	8	220,000 to 50,000	72	1450,000 to 100,000	77	14100,000 to 250,000	31	7250,000 to 500,000	6	-500,000 and over	1	-


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What are the projected direct costs to the (a) taxpayer of Canada for the federal contribution (b) taxpayer of British Columbia for the provincial contribution (c) ratepayer of Vancouver for the municipal contribution to the Habitat conference and, in each case, what are the component parts of the total costs?
2.	What will be the total contribution by the taxpayer to be paid through the United Nations and its agencies for the Habitat conference and what are the component parts of such contribution?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. (a) The estimated direct cost of the Habitat Conference to the federal government is $14 million of
January 26, 1976

which $9.2 million are required to meet host nation commitments and $4.8 million to prepare for Canada's participation in the Conference. Expenditures on the Conference have been incurred since fiscal year 1972-73 and will be completed in fiscal year 1976-77. (b) and (c) The estimated direct cost of the Conference to the Province of British Columbia and the City of Vancouver are not known and are not within the federal jurisdiction since, at this point in time, there are no formal cost-sharing arrangements.
2. Appropriations for Habitat in the Regular Budget of the United Nations total U.S. $2.77 million. Since Canada is assessed 3.18 per cent of this regular budget, the indirect cost to Canada will be U.S. $88,086. In addition to the allocation from the U.N. Regular Budget, Habitat is receiving grants from the United Nations Fund for the Environment, totalling U.S. $3 million, to support the full participation of developing countries in the Conference. Because the Fund for the Environment is a voluntary fund, it is not possible to identify a proportion of this payment which might be called Canadian. Some notion, however, might be gained from the facts that the current target for the Fund is $110 million, of which about $45 million has been already received, including $1 million from Canada.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What has been the total expenditure to date on the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Hercules crane at the Port of Montreal?
2.	What is the Department of Transport's best estimate of the percentage of time in the past 24 months that this specialty crane was employed on giving assistance to the operations of the (a) Port of Montreal (b) Seaway Authority?
3.	Is there any arrangement by which recompense is made for the use on other than Seaway Authority business of this crane and, if so (a) what is the arrangement (b) with whom was it made?
4.	What is the likelihood of the government locating, in the near future, such a facility in the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth?


Ralph Goodale: The St. Lawrence Seaway advises as follows: 1. $3,387,314.00. In 1959, it was deemed essential that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority acquire some form of floating equipment to lift the heavy lock gates for their maintenance and repair. The Hercules was designed and built for the authority, primarily as a gate lifter, in order to ensure minimum delays in case of breakdown. Through arrangements with'the National Harbours Board, it was agreed that the crane would be available to the Port of Montreal for the loading and unloading of extra-heavy material.
2.	The records of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority indicate that the crane was used for 1578 hours during the past 24 months, divided as follows: (a) 37 per cent, (b) 37 per cent.
3.	Users pay charges for services performed by the crane in accordance with the schedule of charges in St. Lawrence Seaway Authority by-law No. 4.
The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
4.	The National Harbours Board has no plans to procure or build a floating crane at the Port of Halifax-Darmouth. Similar satisfactory service has been provided in the past by the private sector.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,170, will the Minister of the Environment explain (a) where the $4 million in cuts in the salmon enhancement programme will take place and what effect this will have on the overall programme (b) what additional resources are being eliminated from the fleet operations that add up to $3.4 million (c) what areas will not get flood mapping done in the amount of $1 million?


George Baker: With reference to the answer given to Question No. 3,170: (a) Cuts were made to British Columbia salmon enhancement program with the result that some site feasibility studies and the development of some operational plans will be delayed, (b) The $3.4 million represents additional resources which were being requested for 1975-76 and subsequent years to provide for increased levels of utilization of Fisheries and Marine vessels engaged in fisheries management and research activities, and oceanographic and hydrographic surveys, (c) Flood mapping is a shared-cost, federal-provincial $20 million program over a 4-5 year period. The budgetary reduction of $1 million has resulted in a slower start of the program for fiscal year 1975-76. This slower start should not result in a less comprehensive program.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,170, could the Minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation advise what effect the $2 million cutback will have on the Granville Island project and if this money will be made up out of the Habitat budget?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: It is expected that the $2 million cutback for the Granville Island project will not have a major effect apart from a possible minor delay in its ultimate completion date. Funds for this project are separate from those for Habitat '76.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,170, can the Solicitor General advise (a) what effect the cutback in $4 million for staffing of two medium security institutions will have on the institutions (b) are these institutions presently opened or, if they are planned to be opened, will the cutback in staff have any effect on their construction?


William Warren Allmand: (a) None because construction has been deferred to a later date, (b) When construction of these two institutions is undertaken, funds required for staffing will be requested from Parliament.
Note: For the purposes of this Question, the two institutions referred to are: Medium Security Institution- Edmonton, Alberta; Medium Security Institution-Winnipeg, Manitoba.

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What is the classification for the post offices of each municipality in the Constituency of Bellechasse?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Post Office Name	Classification	Group or GradeStandon	Semi-staff	2St Neree	Revenue	6St Nazaire de Buckland	Revenue	3Ste Claire	Semi-Staff	5Ste Sabine de Bellechasse	Revenue	4Ravignan	Revenue	5Morigeau	Revenue	4Notre Dame du Rosaire	Revenue	4Sanatorium Begin	Sub	-St Just de Bretenieres	Revenue	6Panet	Semi-staff	1Ste Rose de Watford	Revenue	6St Damien de Buckland	Semi-staff	5St Gervais	Semi-staff	4Ste Germaine Station	Semi-staff	1St Philemon	Semi-staff	2St Anselme	Semi-staff	5St Paul de Montminy	Semi-staff	2St Raphael de Bellechasse	Semi-staff	4St Magloire	Revenue	6St Malachie	Semi-Staff	1St Francois Montmagny	Semi-staff	3Ste Euphemie	Revenue	4St Charles de Bellechasse	Semi-staff	4Montmagny Sub 1	Sub	-St Pierre Montmagny	Revenue	5St Michel de Bellechasse	Semi-staff	2St Malachie Station	Revenue	3Ste Lucie de Beauregard	Revenue	4Ste Apolline de Patton	Revenue	4St Camille de Bellechasse	Semi-staff	3St Vallier	Revenue	6St Lazare Village	Revenue	4Beaumont	Revenue	5Barre	Revenue	4Isle aux Grues	Revenue	3Lac Etchemin	Semi-staff	5Dijon	Revenue	4Lac Frontiere	Revenue	3Berthier sur mer	Revenue	6La Durantaye	Revenue	4Honfleur	Revenue	4Montmagny	Staff	7Buckland	Revenue	4Kirouac	Revenue	2Armagh	Semi-staff	3Daaquam	Revenue	2Langevin	Semi-staff	4Montmagny Sub 2	Sub	-Maison St Bernard	Revenue	1
(a)
Cercle de l'Age d'Or de la Tuque
Les Pensionnaires du Foyer de Ste-Thecle Inc.
Club "La Gaiete" de l'Age d'Or Cercle de l'Age d'Or Membres de l'Age d'Or Le 3' Age, Le Cercle d'Age d'Or
Personnes Agees Retraitees (Comite au sein du Cercle de l'Age d'Or) Les Amis de l'Histoire de la Perade


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Has the government any immediate plans to (a) build (b) rent a post office facility in Kleinburg, Ontario and, if so, on what date will tenders be called?
2.	Has the government a site in mind for the new postal facility and, if so, in what location?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The
Department of Public Works, on behalf of Canada Post Office, leases 802 rentable square feet on Islington Avenue in Kleinburg, Ontario. The lease entered into, effective April 1, 1974 expires on March 31, 1976 and contains an option to renew on the same terms and conditions until March 31, 1977. The Department of Public Works has been requested by Post Office officials to tentatively schedule expanded postal accommodation in Kleinburg, Ontario during the 1977/78 fiscal year. Major considerations in providing this accommodation in that fiscal year will be the priority allocation within the Post Office National Facilities Plan and the availability of funds. Planning for the expanded accommodation is in the very early stages of development. Various alternatives will be studied to determine how the space will be provided and we are not in a position to establish a definite tender call date for either Crown construct or rental proposals at such an early stage of project development.
2.	The need for a site or its location have not been determined as the solution to the provision of the expanded accommodation has yet to be identified.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Since inception of the New Horizons Programme, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each project in the Constituency, what is the (a) title (b) allocated sum (c) year of acceptance (d) name of the municipality concerned (e) number of jobs which have been created?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Yes-$179,215.
(b)	(c)	(d)$28,240	1972-73	La Tuque1,000	1972-73	Ste-Thecle6,394	1972-73	St-Alban6,350	1972-73	St-Adelphe1,444	1973-74	St-Prosper de Champlain3,830	1973-74	Herouxville9,700	1973-74	St-Joseph de Mekinac19,035	1973-74	Ste-Anne de la Perade

January 26, 1976

Order Paper Questions
(a)
Le groupe de nos(10) administrateurs
Cercle de l'Age d'Or
Cercle de l'Age d'Or
Cercle de l'Age d'Or
Les Retraites a l'Action
L'Age d'Or de St-Roch-de Mekinac
Cercle de l'Age d'Or de Champlain
Cercle de l'Age d'Or de Grandes-Piles
Club de l'Age d'Or de St-Marc
L'Age d'Or de St-Severin
Groupe des Retraites de St-Maurice
Club de l'Age d'Or
Club de l'Age d'Or Ste-Genevieve de Batiscan Pensionnaires du Foyer de Ste-Thecle Inc.
Club de l'Age d'Or
Club de l'Age d'Or de St-Narcisse
Club de l'Age d'Or
Cercle de l'Age d'Or
Le Club de l'Age d'Or de Ste-Anne de la Perade Groupe de Retraites de Parent Club de l'Age d'Or de Deschambault Club de l'Age d'Or de St-Gilbert
(e) New Horizons is an activity oriented programme, not a job-creating one. It themselves and the community and all participants are volunteers.
(b)	(C)	(d)10,889	1973-74	Parent3,850	1974-75	Ste-Thecle2,020	1974-75	Hervey Jonction4,320	1974-75	Batiscan9,630	1974-75	St-Tite5,385	1974-75	St-Roch-de-Mekinac4,050	1974-75	Champlain3,127	1974-75	Grandes-Piles1,600	1974-75	St-Marc des Carrieres3,003	1974-75	Proulxville6,400	1974-75	St-Maurice3,625	1974-75	St-Prosper4,590	1974-75	Ste-Genevieve de Batiscan570	1974-75	Ste-Thecle4,580	1974-75	St-Stanislas-de-Champlain7,692	1974-75	St-Narcisse4,205	1975-76	Lac-aux-Sables4,125	1975-76	St-Joseph de Mekinac5,660	1975-76	Ste-Anne de la Perade4,985	1975-76	Parent5,931	1975-76	Deschambault2,985	1975-76	St-Gilbert
was established to enable retired Canadians to participate in activites beneficial to
MANPOWER COUNSELLORS-COMPETITION No. 75-M & I-0-PM-202 (TO)


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to competition number 75-M & I-O-PM-202-(TO) for the position of Manpower Counsellors (a) what was the closing date (b) how many applications were received (c) were all applications acknowledged and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, for what reason (d) were interviews, examinations, etc. held and (i) if so, on what dates (ii) if not, on what dates will they be held (e) what are the names of all (i) applicants selected for interviews and examinations (ii) successful applicants and the average salary involved (f) how many of the successful candidates hold university degrees in the social sciences?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) September 12, 1975. (b) Number of applications received by the PSC, 1,106. (c) Yes; (i) September 10 to October 2 inclusive and, October 22 and 23, 1975; (ii) Not applicable (d) Yes; (i) October 27 to November 21, 1975 inclusive; (ii) Not applicable (e) (i) Government regulations prohibit revealing the names of applicants in a competitive process before the publication of an eligible list; (ii) Successful candidates not yet selected, (f) Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Canadian Radio Television Commission during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission is concerned: 1. Nil.
2.	Nil.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Labour during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Nil.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs) for the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs: 1.
None.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of National Health and Welfare during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Marc Lalonde: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. The names of lawyers hired as

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
legal agents by the Department of Justice to do work for the Department of National Health and Welfare will be supplied by the Department of Justice. No lawyers or law firms performed other than legal services for this department.
2.	See above.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of the Environment during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


George Baker: lawyers who performed services for the Department of the Environment in 1973 and 1974 were hired through the Department of Justice.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Records are not kept by constituency. However, for the City of Victoria, the answer is as follows: 1. Kenneth B. Cox, Owen-Flood, Cox & Turnham, 777 Broughton Street, Victoria, B.C., V8W 1E3. 2
2. 1973, $2,213.82; 1974, Nil.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	Mr. R. B. Hutchison, Crease and Co., 8th Floor, Bentall Building, 1070 Douglas St., Victoria, B.C.
[Mr. Lalonde.)
2.	1973-74, $10,305.75; 1974-75, $14,344.97.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Public Works during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far
as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that their records indicate the following: 1 and 2. For loans approved in Metropolitan Victoria in the years 1973 and 1974, the following lawyers were retained by CMHC, to process the mortgage documentation arising from CMHC direct lending: 1973: Allan L. Cox, R. H. G. Harman, R. B. Hutchison, Louis F. Lindholm, I. H. Stewart. 1974: R. T. Bryant, Allan L. Cox, R. H. G. Harman, R. B. Hutchison, Louis Lindholm, I. H. Stewart, Davis R. Wilson. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrower, and CMHC therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers. The following lawyers were retained in 1973 and 1974 to handle action where arrears on loans approved in Metropolitan Victoria required legal action: 1973: Cox, Taylor and Company, Crease and Company, R. B. Hutchison. 1974: Cox, Taylor and Company. Where actions are settled prior to trial, the costs are paid by the borrower, and are therefore, not known to CMHC.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since 1973, has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation granted a loan to the Quebec Housing Corporation for the Municipality of Lac-Etchemin or for the municipality's housing corporation and, if so (a) what was the amount involved (b) at what rate of interest (c) for how long (d) under what terms of reimbursement?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: See the answer to Question 3,251 (Hansard December 9, 1975, Page 9846). This loan was approved in December, 1973, subject to submission of complete plans and specifications, with confirmation of the approval being issued in September, 1974.
January 26, 1976


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Has the government a programme of assistance through grants or otherwise for the construction or purchase of inflatable structures or other aids to facilitate construction work during the winter months?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The
Department of Public Works makes no grants for the construction or purchase of inflatable structures or other aids to facilitate construction work during the winter months, nor are funds appropriated specifically for this purpose.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	How many correctional officers were employed by the Canadian Penitentiary Service during each of the past five fiscal years, including the current fiscal year?
2.	For the same period, how many (a) were hired (b) resigned (c) retired (d) were dismissed?


William Warren Allmand: 1. 1971-72, 2131; 1972-73, 2246; 1973-74, 2711; 1974-75, 3063; 1975 (to Dec.
8, 1975), 3316.
(to Decem-
2. Period 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975 her 8, 1975)
(a) Hired	161	348	935	771	679(b) Resigned	112	75	262	349	199(c) Retired	9	10	16	21	9(d) Dismissed	5	12	24	21	21
Note: The following number of officers separated from the Canadian Penitentiary Service fo reasons other than listed above:
(to Decem-
Period	1971-	721972-731973-74	1974-75	1975Died	2	1	4	1	3Released on	probation	9	27	28	32	15


Mr. Forrestall: Has any department undertaken, sponsored or partially sponsored research pertaining to the use of LASH vessels at the Port of Quebec and, if so (a) which department (b) what is the name of the study (c) at what date was it undertaken (d) is the material available to the public?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Yes. (a) The Department of Regional Economic Expansion, (b) Study of the Port of Quebec, (c) January 24, 1972. (d) Yes.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the terms of the 1971 marketing assistance agreement between de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited and the Boeing Company?
2.	(a) What was the total amount of payments made to Boeing under the agreement (b) on what dates were such payments made and, in each case, for what reason?
3.	What is the anticipated total amount of payments which will be made to Boeing in the future under the agreement?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Background: The information being requested is "Commercial Confidential" and pertains to an existing agreement between the two companies, de Havilland and Boeing. Accordingly the questions will be answered in a manner intended not to prejudice the commercial position of either of the companies involved. 1. The terms of the agreement are very extensive and relate mostly to marketing wherein Boeing provides extensive support to the de Havilland effort. The terms cover the obligations of each company during each of the four phases of the DHC-7 program's evolution namely: project definition; flight development; initial production; and full production.
2.	The department has been advised by the de Havilland Company that there were no payments due or made to Boeing under the agreement as of this date.
3.	The total amount of payments which will be made to Boeing will depend on the future actions of each company, on the length of time that the agreement is in force, and on the total number of DHC-7 aircraft sold.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Since the inception of the Small Businesses Loans Act, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How many persons have been eligible for such loans?
3.	What is the current rate of interest for such loans?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1.
Data respecting this program is not maintained on a constituency basis.
2.	It is not known how many persons have been eligible for these loans, but 36,264 people have been advanced loans under the plan since its inception in 1961 to September 30, 1975.
3.	8% percent.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation granted a $1,665,667 loan for a period of thirty years to the Municipality of Montmagny (Quebec) and, if so (a) what is the interest rate (b) what are the
10288

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
reimbursement conditions (c) for what amount will the Corporation waive the reimbursement of a quarter of the amount (d) what is the global amount the Municipality will have to pay in capital and interest during the thirty years, with the exception of the non-refundable percent?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: On October 31, 1975, CMHC approved a loan in an estimated amount of $1,165,667 under Part VIII of the National Housing Act, to the City of Montmagny. (a) The interest rate is 10 3A per cent, (b) The loan will be repayed in annual instalments of principal and interest over a term of thirty years, (c) The amount of the loan which will be forgiven by CMHC is estimated to be $291,416.75. (d) The City of Montmagny, over the thirty year term of the loan, will repay a total of $3,026,033,10, of which the principal amount is $874,250.25 and the interest $2,151,782,85.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the purpose of competition number 75-INC-CCIC-1036-10 held by Information Canada (a) how many persons applied (b) was one of the requirements that applicants be bilingual (c) what are the names of all persons on the eligible list established as a result of the competition and did all such persons have as a mother tongue the French language (d) what did Maurice Fournier have to do with the competition and what are all his duties with Information Canada (e) was the competition and/or the eligible list subsequently cancelled and, if so (i) for what reason (ii) on what date (iii) who specifically gave such an order?


John Carr Munro: In so far as
Information Canada is concerned, the answers are as follows: The purpose of the competition was to fill a vacancy for a position titled pay clerk in the clerical group, level 4, pay and benefits division, personnel directorate of Information Canada, (a) 65. (b) The language requirement of the position is not bilingual, it requires a knowledge of the Frendh only, (c) The names of four people appear on the eligible list in the following order: 1. Line Proulx, 2. Louise Simon, 3. Madeleine Duguay, 4. Micheline Blais. The application form which is used in the Public Service does not request that candidates indicate their mother tongue. It does, however, ask the question: "Of the two official languages which one do you use better". Two of the people on the eligible list indicated that they use both languages equally and two indicated French, (d) Maurice Fournier is a personnel administrator employed as one of the department's staffing officers. His role in this competition was that of responsible staffing officer. His duties are recruitment, selection and hiring, in conjunction with various line managers, of appropriate staff to fill vacancies within Information Canada under the authority of the Public Service Employment Act. (e) Neither the competition nor the eligible list has been cancelled.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Was the Minister of Transport's willingness to grant a duty-free franchise at Mirabel communicated to the general public and was his willingness to entertain bids made public, and (a) if so (i) on what

dates were such bids requested (ii) who answered the request (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	(a) How many companies submitted actual bids for the franchise (b) what are the names and addresses of each such company?
3.	On what basis was the list of the interested companies reduced to the few companies to receive final consideration by the inter-departmental committee?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) Yes. As is standard practice, notice to tender for the duty free shop at Mirabel was advertised in both official languages in 30 major daily newspapers across Canada, on October 22 and 23 of 1973. In addition, a letter was sent to all parties who had previously expressed an interest in such an operation. A tender briefing was held on November 13, 1973, and was attended by representatives from 21 interested parties. The tender closed on January 9, 1974.
2.	(a) Nine, (b) Host International (Canada) Limited, Dorchester Boulevard, Montreal, P.Q. La Belle Creole (Canada) Limitee, P.O. Box 64, Toronto A.M.F., L5P 1A2. Les Entreprises Cara (Quebec) Limitee, 55 York Street, Toronto, Ontario. Commercial Caterers Limited, 1376 Bay-view Avenue, Toronto, Ontario. C.P. Hotels Limited, 100 Front Street, Toronto, Ontario. M5J 1E3. Thomcor Holdings Limited, 1 Place Ville Marie, Suite 1536, Montreal 113, P.Q. Mira Inc., St. Bernard de Lacolle, Quebec. Border Commissaries Limited, Kemptville, Ontario. Peter Khana and K.S. Kholi, Drummond Street, Montreal.
3.	All nine tenders received were given due consideration by the evaluation committee taking into account such factors as compliance with tender specifications; the financial, operational, physical, and marketing proposals; and the requirements of inspection services and the Societe des Alcools du Quebec. After the initial consideration on the above mentioned points, the number of contenders was reduced to three companies on the basis of non-compliance with tender specifications and inferior financial proposals.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	In regard to the statement in the House, by the Minister of Transport, on November 5, 1975 at page 8875 of Hansard, what are the terms of reference of the inter-departmental committee referred to by the Minister and who are its members?
2.	Does the committee make decisions on all bids for franchises and/or leases at Department of Transport facilities and are there written guidelines or criteria for the committee in making its decisions and, if so what are they?
3.	In the case of the lease between Sky Shops and DOT at Mirabel, what was the weighting given by the committee to the "gross amount" and the "percentage off" aspects of the bid, and what was the basis for the weighting?
4.	What were the estimates of gross revenue used by the committee for the period 1975 to 1980, in order to judge the weight to be given to the "percentage off" aspects of each bid?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) The
terms of reference of the interdepartmental committee were to (i) perform an evaluation of the physical, operational and financial aspects of the tenders submitted; (ii) make final recommendations to the Quebec Regional Administrator regarding the acceptance of the tender which combines most advantages for Transport Canada while taking into primary consideration the requirements of the travelling public, (b) The members of this particular
January 26, 1976

committee consisted of persons from the Mirabel project office, Transport Canada headquarters, Customs and Excise, Societe des Alcools du Quebec and Montreal International Airport-Mirabel.
2.	The evaluation committee as mentioned above was formed for the sole purpose of making a recommendation pertaining to the duty free shop concession at Mirabel. This committee does not make decisions on all bids for leases at Transport Canada facilities.
3.	In the evaluation of the financial aspect of submissions there was no specific quantitative allocation of weighting factors given to either "gross amount" or the "percentage off" aspects of the bid.
4.	As indicated in our response to question 3, weighting factors were not assigned.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) How many copies of a form entitled: "Canadian Olympic Coins-Payroll Deduction" along with a six page message signed by the President of the Treasury Board were distributed to government employees or any persons connected with the government (b) what was the exact cost of distributing all such forms?
2.	Were the forms distributed to all members of the Canadian Forces and, if so, what was the total number and cost involved?
3.	Of all those receiving such an offer, what is the total number of those who elected to purchase the coins by payroll deduction?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. (a) 410,000 forms distributed; (b) $25,000.
2.	Yes, 10,000 forms-Cost is included in the $25,000.
3.	As of December 9 an estimate of 4,000 forms had been received to purchase coins.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the total number of complaints and enquiries (a) received to date by the Anti-Inflation Board concerning alleged or possible breaches of the anti-inflation guidelines (b) referred to provincial agencies for investigation or action (c) disposed of immediately by verbal or written reply (d) that have resulted in investigation or further action by the Board?
2.	What is the total number of breaches of the guidelines which have been discovered as a result of these complaints or enquiries and into what category does each of these breaches fall (i) price guidelines (ii) profit guidelines (iii) wage and salary guidelines (iv) dividends and other forms of income guidelines (v) other guidelines?
3.	What is the total number of applications by trade unions and by employers to the Anti-Inflation Board for clarification of the guidelines as they affect negotiations in progress and of these, how many agreements were subsequently reached within one week of the clarification being received by both parties?
4.	What is the total number of negotiated agreements between employers and employees submitted to the Board for approval and how many of these have been (a) approved (b) rejected (c) amended?


André Ouellet: I am advised by the Anti-Inflation Board as follows: 1. The total number of communications received concerning the Anti-Inflation guidelines as of December 8, 1975: (a) 13,569 The district taxation offices of the Department of National Revenue received 13,215 and the Anti- 2
Order Paper Questions
Inflation Commission received 354 inquiries. The majority of these were dealt with almost immediately and the specific subject matters were not recorded, (b) 260. (c) see (a), (d) 94.
2.	The number of communications which required further study was 94. (i) 11. (ii) 9. (iii) 70. (iv) 4. (v) 0.
3.	Requests for clarification-31. Five agreements were subsequently reached within one week.
4.	The total number submitted is 86. (a) 14. (b) 13. (c) 2. Additional information has been requested for the remaining 57 submissions.


Mr. Symes: 1.	What is the latest estimate of the total cost of the James Bay Project?
2.	What is the total cost of direct and indirect federal assistance to the James Bay Project?


George Baker: 1.
This question does not relate to matters officially connected with either the federal government or parliament (See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 171
(y).
2. Direct: $1.47 million federal costs of mutual studies by federal-provincial agreement. Indirect: $4.5 million for federal studies of oceanography, anadromous fish, and migratory birds.


Mr. Brewin: 1.	Has the Treasury Board approved the allocation of funds for the construction and operation of a zoo in the Meach Creek Valley area in conjunction with the Quebec government (Societe d'amenagement de l'Outaouais) as proposed by a tentative agreement between the National Capital Commission and the Societe and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to proceed with the construction or operation of the zoo apart from the expropriation by the Quebec authorities of 47 properties in the area?
2.	What is the original estimated total cost of the construction of the zoo?
3.	Have proposed costs been reviewed in the light of inflationary costs of construction and, if so, what is the anticipated total cost?
4.	What agreement has been made for sharing of the capital costs of construction and the operating costs of the zoo between the government and the National Capital Commission and the Quebec government and/or the Societe d'amenagement de l'Outaouais?
5.	What share of the capital costs of construction and operating expenses of the zoo is to be born by the government or anyone on its behalf?
6.	Have feasibility studies been prepared in respect to the operation of the zoo and, if so (a) by whom (b) are they available to the public or to the owners of the expropriated properties?
7.	In the light of frequent undertakings by the government to reduce its expenditures and to observe restraint in government spending, has the Meach Valley Creek Zoo project been reviewed or is it proposed to review the project in the light of the present inflationary crises?
8.	Is it proposed, in the light of Part 7, to review the project with a view to cancellation and the restoring of the expropriated land to the owners?
2 11 30-30*72

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
9.	What is the reason for delay in making offers to the owners whose properties were expropriated in April, 1975 with a view to the settlement to claims for compensation?
10.	Will the government review together with the National Capital Commission and the Government of Quebec, the advisability and financial soundness of the whole project having in mind experience in respect to the new zoo in the Toronto area where there was a gross over-estimate of attendance and consequently in operating revenues from the zoo leading to the assumption by the Metro Corporation of Toronto of a $7.5 million deficit through the loss in operating the zoo and paying for its debts?
11.	How many acres of farm land suitable for agriculture have been expropriated for the purpose of the construction of the zoo?
12.	Have offers recently been made for the renting back to the original owners of their properties at rentals approximately twice as large as the carrying charges for properties that were expropriated and, if so, on what basis?


Barnett Jerome Danson: In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: 1. No. However, subject to the availability of funds from approved budgets, the Cabinet has approved participation to the extent of half of the estimated $7.5 million involved in the first phase of zoo development.
2.	$8,218,000, as estimated in 1971 by an Outaouais Development Corporation study.
3.	No. An N.C.C. study in 1973 proposed a less elaborate initial phase to cost $7.5 million, including land acquisition. N.C.C. has not reviewed construction costs since 1973.
4 and 5. No formal agreement has been made. The government of Quebec and the federal government have reached agreement in principle to share equally the cost of developing and managing the first phase of a wildlife park for Canadian animal species.
6.	Yes. (a) Outaouais Development Corporation and N.C.C. (b) The Somer Report prepared by the Outaouais Development Corporation may be consulted at their offices. The N.C.C. report is an internal working paper but may be viewed at the Commission's library.
7.	The project has been reviewed and any projected expenditure has been postponed for at least one year.
8.	No.
9.	This expropriation falls within the jurisdiction of the Quebec government acting through the Outaouais Development Corporation.
10.	The government and the N.C.C. does not anticipate such a review as the projects are in no way similar in concept, size, capital expenditures or operating costs.
11.	Approximately 900 acres.
12.	Detailed expropriation arrangements fall within the competence of the Outaouais Development Corporation.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the Municipality of St. Georges East, Quebec, receive a grant under the Local Initiatives Programme for the construction of a reservoir and a filtering plant in 1973-74 and 1974-75?


Robert Knight Andras: No.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During the 1974-75 fiscal year, what was (a) the total amount (b) the amount by province granted to the provincial milk marketing boards or agencies or to milk processors in relation to consumer subsidies for fresh fluid milk or powdered milk under agreements between the government and the provincial governments or milk processors?
2.	Of these totals, what amounts were granted for (a) fresh fluid milk (b) powdered milk?


Eugene Whelan: 1. (a)
$74,620,777.01. (b) Newfoundland, $448,180.08; Prince Edward Island, $409,567.85; Nova Scotia, $2,620,621.13; New		
Brunswick, $2,178,279,25;	Quebec, $17,639,498.90; Ontario,	
$32,097,260.29; Manitoba,	$2,978,715.22;	Saskatchewan,
$2,203,298.22; Alberta, $5,052,901.66 British Columbia,		
$8,992,454.41.		
2.	(a)	(b)Newfoundland Prince Edward	$ 448,180.08	$Island	409,567.85	Nova Scotia	2,620,621.13	New Brunswick	2,178,279.25	Quebec	14,553,808.18	3,085,690.72Ontario	27,276,418.72	4,820,841.57Manitoba	2,931,524.18	47,191.04Saskatchewan	2,192,691.22	10,607.00Alberta	5,018,990.06	33,911.60British Columbia	7,723,672.81	1,268,781.60


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,940, did the Department of Supply and Services award a contract valued at $303,414 to Atlas Steels Company, a division of Rio Algom Mines Limited, Welland, Ontario for the modification of one of the Company's electric furnaces and, if so (a) on whose initiative was the project suggested (b) for what reason was Rio Algom Mines selected?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: (a) The project was suggested at the initiative of the Mines Branch of Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, (b) Rio Algom Mines was selected on the basis that it submitted the lowest price for the modifications and six weeks operation of the furnace.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,967, was a contract awarded by the Department of Supply and Services (a) on May 9, 1974 to Saint Lawrence Cement Company, Montreal, Quebec for 110,000 tons of cement at a cost of $35.62 per ton (b) on May 31, 1974 to Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd., Montreal, Quebec for 35,380 tons of cement at a cost of $34.00 per ton destined for the Mirabel Airport construction site?
2.	In each case, was cement to be used for construction in 1974?
3.	What is the justification for cost differential on the cement delivered to the same destination?
4.	For what reason was it stated in the answer that Canada Cement Lafarge did not provide a firm price for the delivery of cement during 1975, when the year in question was 1974?
January 26, 1976


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. (a) Yes, except that date of award of contract was April 23, 1974 as stated in part 1 to the answer to question 1,967. (b) Yes, except that date of award of contract was May 15, 1974 and the unit price was $34.07 per ton, FOB Mirabel airport site.
2.	The contract awarded to St. Lawrence Cement Co. covered the supply of cement for the period April 23, 1974 to April 22, 1975 for the construction of cargo aprons which was to start in May, 1974 and be completed in 1975. Approximately 90,000 tons of cement was the estimated requirement for 1974, and 20,000 tons for 1975. The contract awarded to Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd. was for the supply of cement during the period May 15, 1974 to May 14, 1975 for the runway construction project.
3.	Cost differential was the result of the province of Quebec transportation tariff. Both firms quoted a price of $29.91 per ton, FOB plant. The transportation tariff for St. Lawrence Cement was $5.71 per ton and for Canada Cement Lafarge $4.61 per ton.
4.	As stated at the answer to part 2 above, the requirement for cement was for the construction of cargo aprons during a period of twelve months, from April 23, 1974. The cement requirement was estimated at 90,000 tons in 1974 and 20,000 tons in 1975. As stated in the answer to parts 4 and 5 of question 1,967, Canada Cement Lafarge would not quote on the 1974 portion of the cement requirement for the cargo aprons because their 1974 production capacity was already committed. Therefore, they only tendered on the deliveries to be made in 1975.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,985, at the time of purchase, how old was the fishing trawler Gulf Guard obtained through the Department of Supply and Services under CIDA's authorization?
2.	Did the Department consider purchasing a similar vessel with like dimensions from a shipbuilder?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Eight and a half years.
2. CIDA put a limit of $250,000 for the purchase and conversion of a vessel. Since the estimated cost of a new vessel was $1,250,000, it was not considered practical to approach shipbuilders for this requirement.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,986, what are the special features of the $215.00 toboggan supplied to the Department of National Defence through DSS that justified (a) the expenditure per tobaggan (b) quantity ordered by DSS?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: (a) See reply to question 3,611 (Dec. 12/75 Hansard page 9970). (b) Justification of quantity purchased is based on requirement and quantity as determined and requisitioned by the Department of National Defence in support of Winter Training Exercises conducted by that department.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,004, did the Department of Supply and Services provide for a contract expenditure of $542,000 on behalf of Canadian Patents and Developments Limited during the period April to December 1974-75 and, if so (a) what are the details (b) what was the necessity of such expenditure?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Further investigation indicates that the contract for $542,000 with Gunther Mele Ltd. was negotiated on behalf of the Department of Supply and Services and not on behalf of the Canadian Patents and Developments Ltd. This error occurred as a result of a miscoding of the customer code in the computer system. The details of the contract are shown on the news release below.
OTTAWA, June 27, 1974: The Honourable Jean-Pierre Goyer, Minister of Supply and Services, announced today the award of a contract valued at $541,500 to Gunther Mele Limited of Brantford, Ont.
The contract calls for the supply of .5 million Olympic coin cases in conjunction with the Department of Supply and Services' coin-packaging project. The cases, designed to hold four coins each, will be delivered at a rate of 30,000 per week to the Canadian Printing Bureau in Hull, starting in August 1974.
PR 625/74
Ce texte est egalement disponible en frangais For further information:
Ivan Rolstone (613) 995-7243 123 Slater Street Ottawa K1A 0S5


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,022, what was the cost of interest charged on investment in the inventory of Department of Supply and Services stocks during 1973-74?
2.	With what frequency are phased deliveries and direct shipments from factories made to user departments?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. $237,000. The rate changed quarterly and ranged from 6-3/8 per cent to 7-3/16 per cent during 1973/74. The value of the inventory during the period varied between $5.4 million and $7.5 million. Interest is paid on inventory less accounts payable.
2. DSS records are not maintained in a manner which reflects the frequency of phased and direct shipments. DSS records do indicate, however, that a total of 2,371 direct shipments from contractors to customer departments valued at $4,326,000 were arranged during 1973/74 which represented 16.5 per cent of total sales of stocked items during that fiscal year. The percentage of phased deliveries contained in these direct shipments is not known; however, scheduled deliveries are often arranged to meet relocation schedules and project schedules as specified by user departments.

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,396, which stated in part that the estimated cost of collecting fees for use of government islands in the St. Lawrence Islands National Parks would be $14,550 per year, what was the actual cost during the 1975 summer season?
2.	With further reference to the answer, which stated that the estimated amount of annual fees to be collected was $52,000, what was the actual amount of fees collected during the summer of 1975?
3.	Have boats been purchased for the purpose of collecting fees and, if so (a) what was the cost of each boat (b) where was it purchased (c) what amount was paid out in wages to all persons collecting such fees?


Iona Campagnolo: 1.	$11,246.
2.	$25,623.
3.	(a) Two boats purchased at $9,175 each; (b) Mr. Ed Huck Marina, Rockport, Ontario; (c) $8,746.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	On what date was (a) the report of Mr. Justice Willard Estey received by the Minister of Transport (b) a copy of the report turned over to those in charge of translation?
2.	What was the volume, by number of words or pages, of translation required?
3.	Was the translation done (a) in the Department of Transport (b) elsewhere in the government and, if so, how many translators were assigned to work on the report and what was the time deadline for completion of their work?
4.	Was the translation done by outside contract and, if so (a) by whom (b) how was it awarded (c) what was the estimated cost (d) how many translators did the outside contractor undertake to assign to the task (e) what time deadline was a completed translation promised?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) Thursday, October 23, 1975. (b) Friday, October 24, 1975.
2.	388 typewritten pages, single-spaced.
3.	(a) No. (b) Translation was undertaken by the Translation Bureau of the Secretary of State on a priority basis with a request to have the translation completed as soon as possible; no deadline was specified. A total of thirty-five translators were employed, for varying periods of time, during the translation process.
4.	No.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	Has the Amoco Cairo, carrying the gift of 129,000 tons of Canadian grain to Bangladesh, arrived at its destination and, if so, has the cargo been transferred through lighters to the people of Bangladesh?
2.	Of the 129,000 tons shipped, how many tons actually were delivered in sound condition?
3.	Of the cargo discharged, how many tons were (a) available for direct human consumption (b) suitable for animal feed (c) spoiled and lost during the loading?
4.	What was the cost of (a) demurrage (b) loading the Amoco Cairo in Vancouver (c) discharging the cargo to lighters at destination?

5.	What was the total cost of the charter of the Amoco Cairo to the Canadian people for the Bangladesh delivery?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The Amoco Cairo loaded 112,035 metric tons of grain and sailed from the port of Vancouver on May 3, 1975. The ship arrived off the coast of Bangladesh on June 6, 1975 began off-loading into lightering vessels at a point 58 miles off the port of Chittagong. This shipment was monitored during off-loading by a representative of the Canadian Government (CIDA).
2.	Actual total tonnage delivered to Bangladesh from the Amoco Cairo was 112,031 metric tons and off-loading was completed July 25, 1975.
3.	(a) The total cargo of 112,031 metric tons was of grade 3 Canadian Utility export quality wheat which is fit for human consumption, (b) Not applicable, (c) The remaining four metric tons was lost due to spillage during rough weather at the time of unloading. No loss was experienced during loading.
4.	(a) Nil. (b) The cost of loading the Amoco Cairo in Vancouver is not known as it was included in the over-all freight rate, (c) The cost of discharging the cargo to lighters at destination is not known as it was included in the over-all freight rate.
5.	The cost of the charter of the Amoco Cairo was $2,587,379.82.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of National Revenue during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.
None.
2. Not applicable.
January 26, 1976


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Labour during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Nil.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Transport during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. None.
2. Does not apply.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the War Veterans Allowance Board during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of the Environment during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


George Baker: Order Paper Questions
lawyers who performed services for the Department of the Environment in 1973 and 1974 were hired through the Department of Justice.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Farm Credit Corporation during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1. Gilchrist, R. W., Callaghan & Gilchrist, 208 Main Street, Penticton, B.C.
2. Fees paid to lawyers used in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia by Farm Credit Corporation are paid as follows: (a) by the borrowers upon their direction out of the proceeds of the mortgage loans in which case Farm Credit Corporation does not maintain records of amounts so paid; (b) by Farm Credit Corporation on mortgage proceedings: 1973, Nil; 1974, Nil.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


André Ouellet: The information requested is not available as departmental records are not kept on a constituency basis.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Veterans Affairs during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Unemployment Insurance Commission during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1 and 2. Not applicable.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Agriculture during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Eugene Whelan: In accordance with Section 4 of the Government Contracts Regulation, the Department cannot contract for legal services.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Marcel-Claude Roy: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Iona Campagnolo: There is no information available on file pertaining to the use of legal services in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia. All such appointments are made by the Department of Justice.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Ministry of State for Science and Technology during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Nil.

2. Nil.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the National Energy Board during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During the 1974 and 1975 navigation seasons, how many vessels other than pleasure craft were charged with, or in any way warned about, exceeding speed limits in the St. Lawrence Seaway between Cornwall and Kingston, Ontario?
2.	In each case, what were the (a) dates (b) names and nationalities of the vessels (c) locations where each offence occurred?
3.	(a) What are the maximum speed limits permitted in the area (b) how are they enforced (c) is it the intention of the government to take additional steps to enforce such limits to decrease damage to shore line private properties caused by swells from speeding vessels?


Otto Emil Lang: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:	1.
2. 1974
(a)	(b)	(c)May 28	Arthur Simard-Canada	BrockvilleJune 27	E. B. Barber-Canada	BrockvilleJuly 16	Fort William-Canada	BrockvilleJuly 18	Ottercliffe Hall-Canada	BrockvilleJuly 18	Thorshope-Norway	BrockvilleSept. 24	Leon Falk Jr.-United States	BrockvilleOct. 29	Arthur M. Anderson-United States	BrockvilleMay 27	Ajax-England	MaitlandJune 13	Beavercliffe Hall-Canada	MaitlandJune 18	Archangelos-Greece	MaitlandJuly 13	Senator of Canada-Canada	MaitlandJuly 26	Canadian Hunter-Canada	MaitlandNov. 5	Norse Transporter-Norway	MaitlandJune 4	Atlas Scan-Denmark	PrescottJune 4	Resolute Colocotronis-Greece	PrescottJune 26	Kingdoc-Canada	PrescottJuly 27	Hilda Marjanne-Canada	PrescottJuly 16	Fort William-Canada	PrescottMay 7	Georgian Bay-Canada	MariatownMay 10	Penquer-France	MariatownMay 10	James Norris-Canada	MariatownJuly 4	Lake Manitoba-Canada	MariatownAug. 23	Scandic Wasa-Sweden	MariatownJune 5	ThousandUncle Sam VI-U.S.A.	IslandsJune 5	ThousandIda M.-Canada	IslandsJune 5	ThousandMiss Kingston-Canada	IslandsJune 5	ThousandUncle Sam II-U.S.A.	IslandsJune 5	ThousandThousand Islander II-Canada	IslandsJune 5	ThousandAmerican Venus-U.S.A.	Islands
January 26, 1976

Order Paper Questions
June 6		Thousand
	Miss Kingston-Canada	Islands
June 6		Thousand
	Thousand Islander-Canada	Islands
June 6		Thousand
	Thousand Islander II-Canada	Islands
June 20		Thousand
	American Adonis-U.S.A.	Islands
June 20		Thousand
	Miss Kingston-Canada	Islands
June 20		Thousand
	American Venus-U.S.A.	Islands
June 21		Thousand
	Thousand Islander-Canada	Islands
July 3		Thousand
	American Neptune-U.S.A.	Islands
July 27		Thousand
	Thousand Islander II-Canada	Islands
July 27		Thousand
	American Neptune-U.S.A.	Islands
Aug.24		Thousand
	American Venus-U.S.A.	Islands
Aug. 24		Thousand
	Thousand Islander II-Canada	Islands
Aug. 24		Thousand
	Lady Kingston-Canada	Islands
Aug. 24		Thousand
	Uncle Sam-U.S.A.	Islands
Aug. 24		Thousand
	American Venus-U.S.A	Islands
Aug. 28		Thousand
	Miss Kingston-Canada	Islands
Sept. 2		Thousand
	American Neptune-U.S.A.	Islands
Sept. 2		Thousand
	Miss Kingston-Canada	Islands
Sept. 2		Thousand
	Lady Kingston-Canada	Islands
1975		
May 9	Nipigon Bay-Canada	BrockvilleMay 11	Stadt Wolfsburg-West Germany	BrockvilleMay 12	Adonis-Greece	BrockvilleMay 27	Northern Frost-Greece	BrockvilleJuly 14	St. Lawrence Navigator-Canada	BrockvilleJuly 22	Anaris-Sweden	BrockvilleAugust 27	Diana-Brazil	BrockvilleSept. 9	Buntenstein-West Germany	BrockvilleJuly 22	Beavercliffe Hall-Canada	MaitlandSept. 18	Simoa-Norway	MaitlandOct. 23	City of Colombo-Scotland	MaitlandMay 9	Eldrid-Norway	PrescottJuly 17	Imperial Bedford-Canada	PrescottJuly 28	Pandora-Liberia	PrescottMay 15	Zinnia-England	MariatownNov. 6	Maridan C.-Canada	MariatownJune 11	ThousandAmerican Neptune-U.S.A.	IslandsJune 28	ThousandAmerican Venus-U.S.A.	IslandsJune 28	ThousandThousand Islander III-Canada	IslandsJuly 5	ThousandAmerican Venus-U.S.A.	IslandsJuly 9	ThousandAmerican Venus-U.S.A.	IslandsJuly 23	ThousandAmerican Adonis II-U.S.A.	IslandsJuly 23	ThousandThousand Islander II-Canada	IslandsAug. 23	ThousandThousand Islander III-Canada	IslandsAug. 3	ThousandLady Kingston-Canada	IslandsAug. 3	ThousandUncle Sam Jr.-U.S.A.	IslandsAug. 14	ThousandAmerican Neptune-U.S.A.	IslandsAug. 14	ThousandMiss Kingston-Canada	IslandsAug. 23	ThousandAmerican Neptune-U.S.A.	IslandsSept. 1	ThousandThousand Islander-Canada	Islands3. (a) Maximum speed limits (MPH)	High Water LevelFrom	To Richards Point Light	Regular	ConditionsEisenhower Lock Richards Point Light	55	13	1255	Morrisburg Buoy 84	15	12Morrisburg Buoy 84	Ogden Island Buoy 99	13	12Ogden Island Buoy	Blind Bay-half mile	99 Blind Bay-Half mile	east of Light 162	15	12east of Light 162	Deer Island Light 186	13	12Deer Island Light 186	Bartlett Point Light	10 Upbd	12 9 Upbd 12227	Dnbd	DnbdBartlett Point Light	227	Tibbetts Point	15	12
Thousand Islands Area (Canadian Waters)
Junction of Canadian Middle Channel Open Waters Between and Main Channel Wolfe and Howe Abreast of Ironsides Islands Through the Island	Said Middle Channel 11	11
(b) Marine radar, except Maitland and Thousand Islands where speed is checked with transits and stop watches, (c) The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has no plans to substantially increase surveillance of vessel speeds unless circumstances dictate otherwise.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the number of boats using all canals under the administration of Parks Canada during the (a) 1974 season when there were no lockage fees (b) 1975 season when lockage fees were first instituted?
2.	Was there a decline in the use of the canals and, if so, what was it in percentage terms?
3.	In each case, how many boats using the canals were of United States registry?
4.	Was there a decline in the number of US boats using the canals and, if so, what was it in percentage terms?
5.	Will the government continue to charge lockage fees on all canals under the administration of Parks Canada during 1976?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. (a) 38,475 estimated, (b) 29,560 estimated.
2.	Yes. 23 per cent
3.	1974, 5,560 estimated; 1975, 4,300 estimated.
4.	Yes. 25 per cent
5.	Yes.

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions NUMBER OF BOATS USING RIDEAU CANAL


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the number of boats using the Rideau Canal locks during the (a) 1974 season when there were no lockage fees (b) 1975 season when lockage fees were first instituted?
2.	Was there a decline in the use of the Canal and, if so, what was it in percentage terms?
3.	In each case, how many boats were of United States registry?
4.	Was there a decline in the number of US boats using the Canal and, if so, what was it in percentage terms?
5.	Will the government continue to charge lockage fees during 1976?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. (a) 7,900 estimated; (b) 6,550 estimated.
2.	Yes. 17 per cent.
3.	1974, 2,870 estimated; 1975, 2,240 estimated.
4.	Yes. 22 per cent.
5.	Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: Is it the policy of the government to continue during 1976 the overnight boating charges instituted in 1975 for use of government owned islands in the St. Lawrence Islands National Park and, if so, what are the reasons to justify such a step?


Iona Campagnolo: Yes, overnight boat docking fees at St. Lawrence Islands National Park will continue to be charged in 1976. The reason is that users of National Parks are expected to pay a user fee as a contribution towards the cost of operation and maintenance of such parks.
2.	Was a request made to close the Mont-Joli office and, if so, by whom?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.
Annual Revenue
(a)	Rimouski
(b)	Mont-Joli
(c)	Matane
2. No.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What was the total cost of the Air Canada Inquiry conducted by the Honourable W.Z. Estey, including the printing costs of the report in both official languages?
2.	What was the total remuneration paid to the Commissioner?
3.	What are the names of each member on the Commission and the remuneration received by each?


Ralph Goodale: Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. All of the accounts relating to the Air Canada Inquiry have not yet been submitted. It is expected that the finalization of all accounts will be completed by the middle of February and the information sought will be provided at that time.
2.	The Commissioner received no rumuneration for conducting the Inquiry other than his salary as a judge of the Ontario Supreme Court and latterly as its Chief Justice. He was, of course, reimbursed for his travel and per diem expenses incurred during the period of the Commission.
3.	The only member of the Commission was the Hon. Chief Justice W. Z. Estey.
MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-COMPETITION No. 75-M & I-CC-0-66


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to Competition 75-M & I-CC-0-66 of the Department of Manpower and Immigration dated April 30, 1975 (a) how many applications were received (b) how many persons tried the competition (c) who was the successful applicant (i) what is his salary (ii) what is a complete description of his actual duties (iii) in what location does he presently work (d) what are the names and addresses of all those on the eligible list established as a result of the competition?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) 12. (b) Nil-competition was cancelled on May 29, 1975. (c) Not applicable; (i) Not applicable; (ii) Not applicable; (iii) Not applicable, (d) Not applicable.


Mr. Allard: 1.	From 1972 to date, what was the annual revenue of the Customs Office in (a) Rimouski (b) Mont-Joli (c) Matane?


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development expanding its occupancy at Kent and Laurier Streets in Ottawa within the next year and, if so (a) for what reason (b) how many additional square feet will it occupy (c) in what way is this consistent with the government's declared policy of restraint and non-expansion of the Public Service?


Iona Campagnolo: The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has no definite plans for expansion at Kent and Laurier Streets in Ottawa.


Mr. Cossitt: Have any "near misses" between aircraft occurred in air space controlled by the Department of Transport Air Traffic Controllers since January 1, 1974 and, if so, in each case (a) on what date (b) at what location (c) what aircraft were involved (d) what was the result of the investigation, if any?
January 26, 1976


Ralph Goodale: The expression "near miss" has no official meaning in Air Traffic Services lexicon. Some states have attempted to define a "near miss" as a loss of separation between aircraft where the separation was reduced to less than 1,000 feet. However, in Transport Canada we speak of "Air Traffic Services irregularities", or "losses of separation" and they fall into two categories: critical and technical. The critical case could involve a loss of separation where one or both pilots in command took avoiding action, or there was no time to take such action, but the pilots concerned would have instinctively taken such action had there been time. A technical case is one where a loss of separation was reported but no avoiding action was considered necessary by pilots or controllers, but a report was filed. All losses of separation are investigated by a fact-finding board consisting of controller operations analysts from another unit and aviation safety officers. Findings and recommendations are made directly to the Director, Air Traffic Services, and the Director General, Civil Aeronautics whose offices ensure that appropriate corrective action is taken. The following critical losses of separation occurred in airspace controlled by Canada Air Traffic Controllers since January 1, 1974: (a) March 20, 1974. (b) Edmonton Industrial Airport, (c) CF-FUS, PA28 and Timeair 37/DHC6. (a) October 8, 1974. (b) 25 miles northwest of Moncton, (c) KLM flight 644, B747 and Capital International Airways flight 4902C, DC8. (a) November 3, 1974. (b) Vancouver International Airport, (c) Pacific Western flight 415, B737 and Air Canada flight 283, DC9. (a) June 11, 1975. (b) Toronto International Airport, (c) CF-VPK, Aztec and Eastern Airlines flight 308, B727. (a) August 6, 1975. (b) 15 miles northwest of Saskatoon, (c) Air Canada flight 290, DC9 and Viking 11, a Canadian Armed Forces CT14 (Tutor), (a) August 8, 1975. (b) Sydney, Nova Scotia, (c) CF-GHL, DC3 and N7242R, BE35. (d) Following each such incident, the circumstances were thoroughly investigated by an Air Traffic Services Fact Finding Board, and appropriate recommendations were actioned, designed to prevent reoccurrence.


Mr. McKinnon: How much time elapsed between the final advertisement inviting inquiries regarding the AHOP scheme in September-October 1975 and the realization that no funds were available for the applicants on Vancouver Island?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: Funds from CMHC's Capital Budget for 1975, for the AHOP under Section 34.15 of the National Housing Act, for lending on Vancouver Island, were sxhausted on September 4, 1975. The purpose of the advertisement, which appeared on September 23, was to draw attention to the AHOP financed by approved lenders under Section 34.16 of the NHA.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Which films produced by Douglas Sinclair Productions Limited have had showings on CBC in the years 1965 to 1975?
2.	How many showings did each film have and over which parts of CBC network?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. See lists below.
CBC French Services Division
Use of films by Douglas Sinclair Productions Limited, 1965-75.
Title	No. of Distribution
Occasions
Le Berceau du ski	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/Ro/Ri
	1	M/Mo/Q/O/J/C/Ri
	1	W
L'Hiver c'est le temps du ski	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/TR/Ri
	1	M/Mo/Q/O/J/Ri
	1	W
Le Skieur debutant	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/TR/Ri
	1	W
	1	M/Mo/Q/O/J/Ri
Le Ski en Nouvelle-Angleterre	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/TR/Ri
	1	W
	1	M/Mo/Q/O/J/Ri
Les Laurentides et le skieur	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/Ro/Riintermediate	1	W1	M/MO/Q/O/J/RiLe Skieur avance	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/TR/Ri2	W1	M/Mo/Q/O/J/RiLa Technique du ski passe	1	M/Mo/O/Q/Ma/TR/Ri1	W1	M/Mo/Q/O/RiLe Skieur expert	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/TR/Ri1	Ed1	W1	M/Mo/Q/O/J/RiLe Ski de competition le slalom	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/J/TR/Ro/Ri1	Ed1	W1	M/Mo/Q/O/JLe Ski de competition: la	1	descente	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/J/TR/Ro/Riet le slalom geant	1	Ed1	W1	M/Mo/Q/O/JLe Ski en Autriche et en Colom-	1	bie-	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/TR/RiBritannique	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/S/Rim/J/ TR/Ro/C/Ri1	Ed1	W1	M/Mo/Q/O/J/RiLes Bugaboos	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/TR/Ri1	Ed1	W1	M/Mo/Q/O/JLe Norvere et l'Holmenkollen	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/TR/Ri1	Ed1	W1	M/Mo/Q/O/JLa Chasse aux oies de l'Arc-	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/S/Rim/J/tique	RO/Ri1	M/Mo/Q/O/Ro/C1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/Rim/C/Ri1	Ma1	Mo1	T/M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/W/RoL'Equitation en haute mon-	1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/S/Rim/J/tagne	TR/ Ro/C/Ri
January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Title
Banff et ses plaisirs
Le Saumon d'automne
Les Pistes poudreuses
Plaisirs d'hiver au Quebec
Le Coho argente
White Powder World
No. of Distribution Occasions
1	M/Mo/Q/O/T
1	M/S/TR
1	T/M/O/Mo/Q/Ma
1	W
1	Ed
1	W
1	Ed
1	T/M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/S/Rim/
TR/
Ro/C/Ri
1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/Rim/J/Ro/C/
Ri
1	T/M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/W/Ed/
Rim/
J/TR/Ro/C/Ri
1	T/M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/S/Rim/J/
TR/
Ro/C/Ri/W/Ed 1	M/Mo/Q/O/Ro/C
1	Ma
1	T/M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/W/Ed/
Rim/
TR/Ro/C/Ri 1	M/Mo/Q/O/C
1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/Ro/C/Ri
1	T/M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/Rim/Ro/
Ri
1	T/M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/S/Rim/J/
TR/
Ro/C/Ri/W/Ed
1	T
1	M/O/Mo/Q/Ma/S/Rim/J/
TR/
Ro/C/Ri
Notes: M-Montreal, O-Ottawa, Mo-Moncton, Q-Quebec, Ma-Matane, Ri-Riviere-du-Loup, S-Sherbrooke, Ro-Rouyn, Rim-Rimouski, C-Carleton, J-Jonquiere, TR-Trois Rivieres, Ed-Edmonton, W-Winnipeg, T-Toronto.
CBC English Services Division Use of films by Douglas Sinclair Productions Limited, 1965-75.
Title	Number of	DistribiScarlet Guardians	occa- sions	*Ski Films (4)	*Snow Holiday	*Sled Dog Race	*Light From An Arctic Window	*Quebec Winter Fun	*Arctic Goose Hunt	*White Trails	*Wings From The North	5	W/ECanoeing The Big Country	5	W/ESki	3	W/ESilver Coho	3	W/ELaurentian Calendar	4	W/EHigh Riders	1	FNBanff Country	2	FNBon Jour Montreal	2	FNAutumn Salmon	4	W/ESki School (13)	28	WIr. Faulkner.]	
Number
Title	of	DistributionRocky Mountain Rainbow	occa- sions 3	W/ESaskatchewan Fly Fishing	2	FNBig Jasper Country	4	W/EJames Bay Goose Hunt	2	W/EInland Cruising	2	W/EWhite Powder World	2	FNThe Paul Hahn Story	2	WCree Lake	2	W/NTSLand of 60,000 Lakes	2	W/NTSFlashing Silver	3	W/NTSParks and People	2	W/NTSFishing in Lapland	4	W/NTSCanoeman's Wilderness	3	W/NTSBig Northern Pike	4	W/NTSCanoeing In The North Country	4	W/NTSNordic Skiing Canoeing the Churchill River	2	W/NTSRiding the Big Country	2	W/NTSNorth of Stockholm	1	NTSCross-Country Skiing	2	NTSThe Snows of Garibaldi	2	NTSReindeer Safari Long, Long Ski Trail	1	NTS
Notes: CBC records do not indicate actual usage. This material was used both as standby and in the network series "Double Exposure", which ran during the 1965 to 1967 seasons. W-West network. W/E-West/East networks, not including Ontario. NTS-Northern Television Service. FN-Full network.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,251, how much does the Housing Board of Lac-Etchemin, Quebec repay each month to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: As stated in the answer to Question No. 3,251, (Hansard, December, 1975, Page 9846), the municipal Housing Bureau of Lac-Etchemin makes monthly payments of principal and interest on its loan to the Quebec Housing Corporation, and the amounts of such repayments are not therefore known to CMHC.


Mr. Cossitt: For the years (a) 1972-1973 (b) 1973-1974 (c) 1974-1975, what were the (i) names (ii) amounts received by all moving contractors in the Ottawa area who were used by the Department of National Revenue without tenders being called?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a)
1972-1973, (i) Crismar Enterprises; (ii) $20,000. (b) 19731974, (i) Crismar Enterprises; (ii) $101,000. (c) 1974-1975,
(i)	Crismar Enterprises; (ii) $89,000.
January 26, 1976


Mr. Cossitt: What are the (a) names (b) addresses of all architects who were involved in any way directly or indirectly with the construction, design, etc. of Mirabel Airport and, in each case, what was the amount of remuneration?


Ralph Goodale: Architects who provided design to consulting engineers and for which transport has a direct contract with the architects
1.	Audy, Verreault	Blais & Belanger,
Architects
Consulting Engineers	800 St. Denis Street
Montreal, Quebec
2.	Brais, Frigon, Hanley,
Brett & Rinfret and Shawinigan Engineers Consulting Engineers
3.	Lalonde, Girouard & Leten-dre
Consulting Engineers
4.	Beaudry, Dupuis, Morin,
Pouthier
Consulting Engineers
Architects who provided design and for which transport has a direct contract with the architects
1.	Blouin & Blouin 640 Cathcart Street Montreal, Quebec	$ 323,200.002.	P G L Architectes 2001 University Street Montreal, Quebec	5,094,425.003.	Longpre, Marchand, Goudreau, Dobush, Stewart 506 Ste-Catherine St., East Montreal, Quebec	621,019.004.	Ouellet & Reeves 2500 Bates Road Montreal, Quebec	318,745.375.	Begin, Schreiber, Graham Landscaping Architects 1253 McGill College Montreal, Quebec	119,294.00


$ 7,209.84 14,130.33 5,994.86 6,649.33 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-RENOVATION TO ROOM 428N, CENTRE BLOCK
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of External Affairs make any arrangements to renovate Room 428-N of the Centre Block since August 8, 1974 and, if so
(a)	with whom (b) what are the names and job designations of all persons in the Department who made such arrangements (c) what is the name and job designation of the most senior official of the Department who authorized such arrangements (d) what are the reasons that the Department requested such arrangements (e) on what date was such a request made (f) what are the names and job designations of all employees of the Department who now work in Room 428-N or who will be posted to such location (g) did the Department pay for renovations to the office and for equipment placed therein (h) at what cost?
2.	Does the Department have a policy of moving employees into the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings and, if so (a) for what reason is such space required over and above the Lester B. Pearson Building
(b)	is it the policy of the Department to take over offices normally
Order Paper Questions
occupied by those engaged in the political process, such as Members of Parliaments, provided that such permission can be obtained?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. (a) The Department of Public Works and the Sergeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons. (b) Jacques S. Roy, Senior Departmental Assistant to the Minister, (c) Jacques S. Roy, Senior Departmental Assistant to the Minister, was the most senior official who authorized the arrangements, (d) The purpose was to provide office space for Mr. J. S. Roy, by subdividing room 428-N. Previously, the office had been occupied by one secretary and presently it is occupied by Mr. Roy and two secretaries. The partition was requested in order to alleviate the problems of noise and overcrowding in a room shared by three persons, (e) November 13, 1975. (f) Mr. Jacques S. Roy, Senior Departmental Assistant to the Minister, Mile Francine Normandin, ST-SEC-1, Mile Francine Cyr, ST-SEC-2. (g) The Department did not pay for renovations to the office, but it did pay for the installation of telephones, (h) The cost of telephone installation was $275.
2. The Department does not have a general policy of moving employees into the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings. However, it has on occasion located one officer in the Centre Block, for the following reason: (a) When Parliament is in session, the Minister is primarily located at the House of Commons, while the Department is based at the Lester B. Pearson Building. In view of this, it is preferable for more efficient communication between the Minister and the Department to have one of its officers located at the Centre Block of the House of Commons, (b) It is not the Department's policy to take over offices normally occupied by Members of Parliament. Room 428-N was already occupied by one person working for the SSEA; now it is occupied by three persons working for the SSEA.


CENSUS AREA MANAGER POSITIONS
Mr. Bawden: 1.	Did Statistics Canada advertise for applicants for the position of 1976 census area managers and, if so, which regions do such areas include?
2.	Was a knowledge of English and French essential for an applicant to be hired?
3.	What is the duration of employment in the census area manager's position?
4.	Is language training necessary and, if so (a) for what duration would such training be available (b) what is the estimated total cost based on the needs of the applicants who were hired (c) how many applicants have been accepted?
5.	Were any applicants rejected because they lacked a fluency in both languages or because they refused to agree to the language training programme?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. Yes, Census area Manager positions were advertised for eight regional offices serving the following areas:
Regional Office	Description of Area
St. John's	Province of Newfoundland.
Halifax	Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
Prince Edward Isllrtid.
Montreal	Province of Quebec except the electoral districts of Abitibi, Gatineau, Hull, Labelle, Pontiac, Temiscamingue and Villeneuve.

January 26, 1976
Regional Office Ottawa
Toronto
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Vancouver
Order Paper Questions
Description of Area
The electoral districts of Abitibi, Gatineau, Hull, Labelle, Pontiac, Temiscamingue and Villeneuve in the Province of Quebec and the electoral districts of the province of Ontario situated north of and including the counties of Algoma, Nickel, Belt and Nippissing and east of and including the counties of Renfrew North-Nipissing East, Frontenac-Lennox and Addington and Kingston and the Islands.
The area of the province of Ontario south of and including the electoral districts of Bruce, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Victoria-Haliburton, Hastings and Prince Edward-Hastings.
Province of Manitoba, the electoral districts of Fort William, Port Arthur and Thunder Bay in the Province of Ontario and the electoral districts of Assiniboia, Moose Jaw, Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, Regina-East, Swift Current-Maple Creek and Yorkton-Melville in the Province of Saskatchewan.
Province of Alberta and the electoral districts of Battleford-Kindersley, Mackenzie, Meadow Lake, Prince Albert, Saskatoon-Biggar and Saskatoon-Biggar and Saskatoon-Humbolt in the Province of Saskatchewan.
Province of British Columbia.
2.	Out of a total of 166 positions, 41 were designated bilingual. The 41 bilingual positions were distributed among the regional offices as follows: Halifax Regional Office, 3; Montreal Regional Office, 22; Ottawa Regional Office, 13; Toronto Regional Office, 1; Winnipeg Regional Office, 2.
3.	The duration of employment for the census area managers is from 9 to 12 months depending on appointment dates.
4.	According to the Official Language Administration System Manual (OLAS), page 349 article 3.3.1 (b), a term employee must meet the language requirements prior to being appointed. Language training is therefore not necessary for these positions.
5.	For positions filled to this date, no applicants have been rejected as failing to meet the language requirements of the positions. Since language training is not available to applicants for these term positions, no agreement to undertake training was requested.


MR. JAMES SKAKIE
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is James Skakie, a Canadian citizen, in jail in Mexico and, if so (a) when was he arrested (b) how long did he remain in jail before sentence?
2.	In December 1974, was his family informed that he would be released upon payment of $4,800 and, if so, was this sum deposited with the Canadian Embassy in Mexico City?
3.	Did the Canadian Ambassador advise his family that he would be released in October, 1975?
4.	Has he been released?
5.	Has his family been informed that unless they pay an additional $2,500 he will be held for another year?
6.	Will the Minister of External Affairs make appropriate representations for the immediate release of Mr. Skakie without further payments?


Monique Bégin: 1. James Skakie, a Canadian citizen, was arrested in Mexico on October 14,
1973.	In September, 1974, he was sentenced. Under Mexican law, the courts have up to one year from the date of arrest to pronounce sentence, during which time an investigation and trial take place. It is normal for a trial to last from three to ten months.
2.	In September, 1974, Mr. Skakie was approached by a private Mexican citizen calling himself Mayor Pena who offered to effect his release for a payment of $4,800. Mr. Skakie informed his family by telephone of this offer. He was strongly advised by the Canadian Embassy not to turn over any money to anyone promising fast release by obviously extra-legal means. Mr. Skakie's lawyer was at this time appealing his sentence through normal legal channels. No sum of $4,800 was ever deposited by the family with the Canadian Embassy.
3.	In a letter dated May 15, 1975, to Mr. Morton Shulman, who was enquiring on behalf of the Skakie family, the Canadian Ambassador stated that the Mexican judicial system allows a detainee to be released on grounds of good behaviour after he has served two-thirds of his sentence; accordingly, Mr. Skakie would be eligible for release in October, 1975. It should be noted that release after serving two-thirds of a sentence is not automatic.
4.	Mr. Skakie has not been released. He has applied for release on good behaviour and the Mexican authorities are at present considering his application. The Embassy was informed by the Mexican authorities that, owing to a considerable backlog of cases, a decision on reduction of Mr. Skakie's sentence would be delayed.
5.	On September 5, 1975, the Embassy was informed by Mr. Skakie's lawyer that an appeal to a higher court had been successful and a bail of $2,500 had been set. If Mr. Skakie agreed to pay this bail, he would be relased from prison and deported, the bail becoming, in effect, a fine. This is a legal concession sometimes granted to foreign prisoners. This information was passed on to the family by the Department of External Affairs. Mr. Skakie was confident, however, that his application for reduction of sentence would be successful and that he would soon be released. He therefore decided not to post the bail. When Mr. Skakie was last contacted by an officer of the Embassy, he was still confident that his application would be successful.
6.	The Department of External Affairs and the Canadian Embassy in Mexico have been following this case very closely, and have frequently made representations to the Mexican authorities to ensure that Mr. Skakie obtain his full rights under Mexican law. As Mr. Skakie has been legally tried and sentenced, and as there is no evidence of discrimination against Mr. Skakie, there are no grounds for making representations requesting his immediate release. The Embassy will, however, continue to follow the case and assist Mr. Skakie to effect his release by normal judicial means.
January 26, 1976	_________COMMONS DEBATES	__10301


TDA FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the Department of Transport communicated details of the Development Agency Fellowship Programme for post-graduate studies relating to transportation which offers $4,650 individual awards plus tuition fees to post-graduate students across Canada?
2.	Is information available for prospective applicants from Memorial University in Newfoundland and, if so, on what date was the information sent to the University?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. The Transportation Development Agency administers the TDA Fellowship Program on behalf of Transport Canada.
2. Due to the Post Office strike the annoucements, posters, booklets, and application forms were sent out by Bankers Dispatch Corporation during the week of November 10. These were sent to Deans of Graduate Studies at 49 Canadian Universities and Colleges. An envelope containing 10 posters, 5 booklets and 5 application forms was sent to Dr. F. A. Aldrich, Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies, on November 11th, BDC Waybill M614017.


MR. GARRY B. PETTITT
Mr. Brisco: 1.	Has Mr. Garry B. Pettitt, SIN No. 451-287-304 ever been charged with a criminal offence and, if so, was forgery one of the charges?
2.	Has Mr. Pettitt ever been convicted of a criminal offence?


William Warren Allmand: Information contained in criminal record files is exchanged among authorized law enforcement agencies under authority of the Identification of Criminals Act. Publication of such information beyond these limits could not be made while under protection from criminal or civil liability. To do so could be construed as an invasion of an individual's privacy. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not in a position to reveal publicly the existence or otherwise of records of criminal charges.


MIRABEL AIRPORT-INTERNATIONAL AIR CARRIERS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Which of the international air carriers certified to operate in Canada will be based at Mirabel Airport?
2.	Which of the airlines have been forced by the government to establish their bases at Mirabel Airport against their wishes?
3.	Has the Department of Transport, or any other department, received any communication from the International Air Transport Association on behalf of foreign air carriers who object to being forced to establish their bases at Mirabel Airport?
4.	What is the estimated cost of converting facilities at Mirabel and Dorval Airports to accommodate the use of French and English as languages of communication in air traffic control?
5.	Will the Minister of Transport provide copies of communications from I AT A and/or ICAO containing their opinions of the government's plans to implement French as a language of use in air traffic control at Quebec airports particularly at Mirabel and Dorval Airports?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Aer Lingus, Aeroflot, Aero Mexico, Air Canada, Air France, Alitalia, British Airways, CP Air, Ceskoslovenske Aero, El A1 (Israel), Iberia, KLM,
Order Paper Questions
Lufthansa, Olympic, Sabena, SAS, Swissair, TAP (Portugal).
2.	International carriers were informed in November, 1973 that international operations would all be transferred to Mirabel; there is no record of protest against the move from Dorval.
3.	No communications from International Air Transport Association have been received but direct communication from KLM requested assurance of domestic inter-connections.
4.	No decision has been made to accommodate the use of French and English as languages in air traffic control at Mirabel and Dorval Airports. The decision will depend upon the successful completion of simulator studies which are being planned to start early in 1976.
5.	No communications have been received from IATA and/or ICAO.


IMPLEMENTATION OF FRENCH AS A LANGUAGE OF USE IN COMMUNICATIONS AT AIRPORTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport had discussions with the (a) International Civil Aviation Organization (b) International Air Transport Association with respect to the implementation of French as a language of use in air-to-ground and ground-to-air communications at airports in Quebec and (i) if so, in each case, what was their position (ii) if not, for what reason were such discussions not initiated by the government?
2.	Were discussions initiated with either ICAO or IATA, or both, with regard to the use of French as a language of communication in air traffic control at Quebec airports, by any department other than DOT and, if so, what were the results?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) and
(b) No. (i) Not applicable, (ii) The ICAO position is clearly stated in Annex 10, Section 5.2 Radiotelephony Procedures-Language to be used. 5.2.1.1.1 Recommendation-In general, the air-ground radio-telephony communications should be conducted in the language normally used by the station on the ground. 5.2.1.1.2 Recommendation- Pending the development and adoption of a more suitable form of speech for universal use in aeronautical radiotelephony communications, the English language should be used as such and should be available, on request from any aircraft station unable to comply with 5.2.1.1.1, at all stations on the ground serving designated airports and routes used by international air services. The IATA is an association of international air carriers which concerns itself primarily with economic factors in international aviation and it is not customary or practical for States to consult with such organizations in matters such as operational safety standards which are adequately served by ICAO.
2. Transport Canada is not aware of any discussions by any department with, IATA or ICAO, on the use of French as a language in air-ground communications.


TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT-CIRCULAR ISSUED ON &quot;UNITS WORKING IN FRENCH (UWF)&quot;
Mr. Cossitt: 1. Was a two page circular issued during or around the month of October, 1975 within the Department of Transport headed "Units Working in French (UWFs)" and, if so (a) what was the exact purpose of the

January 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
document (b) did it state on page 2 that supervisory positions within these units will demand a new and much higher level of French which has been labelled level 77 (c) was level 77 described as a high degree of fluency in the French language "so high, in fact, that the PSC cannot now train Anglophones to reach this level" (d) did it also state that "in the practical world almost all of these level 77 positions will eventually be filled by Francophones"?
2.	Does the document indicate that it is government policy to prohibit Anglophones who are bilingual from working within what have been classified as "Units Working in French" and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Are steps being taken to end this discrimination and, if so, what are they?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) to (d)
No such circular is known to have been issued during or around October, 1975 within Transport Canada.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


MIRABEL AIRPORT-SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT
Mr. Caouette (Temiscaminque): Was there any snow removal equipment bought for the Mirabel Airport and, if so (a) how many units (b) at what price (c) who were the tenderers and what price was quoted by each (d) who was the successful tenderer?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes. (a) Three, (b) $173,080.00 each = $519,240.00 total, (c) Danline Canada Limited, Almonte, Ontario was the only firm asked to submit an offer. This Company is the Canadian distributor of the "Snowblast" RAHS-300A-75C high speed snowblower, the unit found to be the most effective in removing all types of snow from airport runways and approaches thereto, while maintaining an excellent serviceability rate. The superiority of this machine was determined by the Ministry of Transport during extensive testing over two winters, (d) Danline Canada Limited, Almonte, Ontario.


UIC-STATISTICS, PEI
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What was the total number of Unemployment Insurance claims in the Province of Prince Edward Island in each month since January, 1972?
2.	For the same period, what were the total amounts of money benefits paid?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1 and 2. See Statistics Canada Publication 73-001 entitled "Statistical Report on the Operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act."


ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGS, PICKERING, ONTARIO
Mr. Fairweather: Have representations been received to declare or designate archaeological digs at the Draper Site, 8th Concession and the White Site, 7th Concession, Township of Pickering, Ontario, historical preserves or historic sites respectively and, if so (a) what is the outcome of such representations (b) on what date will a decision be announced?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) Representation has been received to declare the Pickering Airport Site a Historical

Site. It is not known if Pickering Site refers to the White Site or the Draper Site, but research on the latter two is in progress. When the Historic Sites and Monument Board of Canada met in November 1975 there was not sufficient information gathered to permit the Board to assess fully these sites, (b) It is hoped to have the necessary research completed by the time the Board meets again in June, at which time the White and Draper Sites will be discussed.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-USE OF TWIN ENGINE TURBOJET
Mr. Bawden: On April 1, 1974 did a Department of Transport twin engine turbojet, originated in Ottawa (a) land first in Muskoka (b) proceed to Kitchen-er-Waterloo airport without any passengers (c) stand with its engines idling for half an hour (d) take two youths to Ottawa and, if so (i) how much did this round trip cost the government (ii) what was the purpose of the trip (iii) who were the passengers brought back to Ottawa (iv) was it necessary to use such an expensive mode of transportation for two people?


Ralph Goodale: (a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) no; (d) no; (i) $565. (ii) Flight Training MOT Civil Aeronautics Inspectors. (iii) W. R. Glenn, (iv) This was a routine training flight and not specifically transportation for anyone.


TOLLS-TRENT-SEVERN AND RIDEAU CANAL SYSTEMS
Mr. Gillies: 1.	In 1975 did the government begin to charge tolls to the users of the Trent-Severn and Rideau Canal systems and, if so (a) what was the capital cost of (i) new buildings (ii) new offices (iii) safes in the various lockmaster's offices (iv) cars for those collecting money at the locks (v) other capital outlay necessitated by the commencement of this practice (b) how many additional persons were employed after the introduction of tolls on the canal systems?
2.	Are those employed (a) students (b) part-time help who would not be working during the closed season?
3.	How many permits were issued in 1975 and what was the gross revenue from these permits?
4.	How many boats locked through the Canals during each year 1974 and 1975?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Yes.
Rideau Canal Trent Canal
(a)	Capital Cost of:
(i)	New Buildings	Nil(ii)	New Offices	Nil(iii)	Safes in Lockmas- $7,099.69 ter's Offices(iv)	Cars for collecting $960.00 (rental)(v)	Other capital outlay Nil(b) Additional	persons 19 additionalemployed after intro- employees duction of tolls on recruited for Canals	4.50 man-years
Nil
Nil

Nil
27 additional employees recruited for 3.61 man-years
January 26, 1976

2.	Additional persons employed were: (a) Students: Rideau Canal, 15; Trent Canal, 21. (b) Part-time: Rideau Canal, 4; Trent Canal, 6.
3.	Trent-Severn Waterway: Permits, 17,804; Revenue, $129,019; Rideau Canal: Permits, 6,380; Revenue, $44,050.
4.	Trent-Severn Waterway: Vessel movements, 1974, 216,484, Vessel movements, 1975, 167,881; Rideau Canal: Vessel movements, 1974, 72,556, Vessel movements, 1975, 62,984.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION -LOAN APPLICATION
Mr. Beatty: Has the Minister of Agriculture at any time overruled a decision by the Farm Credit Corporation to turn down a loan application and, if so, in each case (a) what was the name of the farmer (b) on what date was the loan approved (c) what was the amount?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.


A. H. HOLMES-EARLY RETIREMENT
Mr. Beatty: Did Mr. A. H. Holmes take early retirement from his post as Director of the Lending Branch of the Farm Credit Corporation and, if so, for what reason?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: Retired December 30, 1975 following completion of 34 years of public service. The reason for retirement is personal.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 2,607, 3,114, 3,217, 3,318 and 3,552 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


RELEASE OF PRISONERS
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	By institution, how many prisoners were released in each month commencing January 1, 1974 to date?
2.	In each case, what was (a) the length of sentence at the time of incarceration (b) the nature of the crime for which sentence was imposed (c) the actual length of sentence served?
3.	How many released since January 1, 1974 (a) were receiving psychiatric assistance during incarceration (b) continued to receive psychiatric help after release (c) were considered to be of sound mental condition upon release?
4.	How many released since January 1, 1974 have become repeat offenders, and (a) how many are serving sentences in (i) maximum (ii) medium (iii) minimum security institutions (b) are on parole (c) in each case, what was the nature of the repeat offence and length of sentence imposed?
Order Paper Questions
5.	By institution, how many prisoners were incarcerated for crimes of (a) murder (b) armed violence (c) unarmed violence (d) rape?
Return tabled.


CBC EMPLOYEES
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	By year since 1970, how many persons were employed by CBC on the basis of (a) full-time (b) part-time (c) contract (d) free-lance in (i) Halifax (ii) Montreal (iii) Toronto (iv) Ottawa (v) Winnipeg (vi) Edmonton (vii) Calgary (viii) Vancouver (ix) Victoria?
2.	In each case, how many employed in (a) executive (b) administrative (c) policy planning were (i) unilingual English (ii) unilingual French (iii) bilingual of French origin (iv) bilingual of English origin?
3.	In each case, what was the annual amount paid in (a) salaries (b) expenses?
Return tabled.


UNITED NATIONS ACCOUNTS
Mr. Stanbury: As of September 30, 1975 (a) what amount is owing by each country in arrears of payment of the special United Nations assessment for maintenance of the UN Emergency Force and the UN Disengagement Observer Force in the Middle East (b) how much has Canada received on account of its contribution to these forces (c) what amount is owing to Canada on this account?
Return tabled.


HIRING POLICY IN ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Jones: 1.	What is the policy and procedure adopted by (a) Canadian National Railways including Canadian National Express (b) Information Canada (c) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with respect to hiring appointments and promotions in the (i) Atlantic Region (ii) Moncton area?
2.	What are the tests and criteria used to develop the policy?
3.	Do many of the bulletins specify fluency in French and, if so, for what reason?
Return tabled.


CONTROL OF EFFLUENTS FROM FISH PROCESSING PLANTS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Since the introduction of the national guidelines for control of effluents from fish processing plants (a) what are the names of such plants (b) which ones have negotiated schedules of compliance (c) how many new plants have been established?
2.	Have the new plants fulfilled the treatment requirements and, if not, which ones?
Return tabled.
Halifax Relief Commission



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1976

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-78, to repeal an act respecting the Halifax Relief Commission and to authorize the continuation of pensions, grants or allowances paid by the Halifax Relief Commission, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member is anxious to get on with the debate, but perhaps we could put the third reading motion first. When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this bill required little discussion at the second reading stage on Friday, December 12. It was dealt with expeditiously in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to which it was referred and in which it was discussed on Tuesday, December 16. Likewise, I believe it will be dealt with in a few minutes this afternoon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't be too sure, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one point which I raised at the second reading stage on December 12 which was dealt with in committee and concerning which I want the position to be very clear. This bill relates to the payment of pensions to persons who are still living as survivors of the Halifax explosion of 1917. Originally, some 1,600 or 1,700 persons were killed in that explosion and some 10,000 were injured. Over the years a good deal of money has been paid out in pensions, but according to the last report, the number still alive and drawing pensions is now down to 65.
When we debated this bill at second reading I expressed concern as to whether the Canadian Pension Commission, which will administer these pensions, from now on, would be a body authorized merely to pay out the pensions in amounts already determined or whether that commission would have authority to escalate pensions in accordance with the rise in the cost of living. I wanted to know whether it would have authority to deal with any new applications on the part of survivors, if there should be such new applications. During my speech on Friday, December 12, 1975, I asked these questions, as noted on

page 9985 of Hansard. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Trudel) rather disturbed me with what he said. He noted that I had asked my question, that there had been similar questions put by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), and then he said, as noted on page 9986:
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was particularly concerned about that point

He was referring to the point concerning pension payments being escalated because of the rise in the cost of living. He went on to say:
-although the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants would also like to see the matter of pensions reviewed. I am wondering if this bill would permit such a review, or the inclusion of new people who are still suffering and are seeking some consideration. From my reading of the bill I am not aware of such possibilities. However, this point can best be raised in committee.
I am more or less satisfied with what was said in committee a few days later, and I shall quote the evidence given before the committee in a moment. But I feel that the questions I raised in this House should not rest with the negative statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. As I said, the committee dealt with this matter on Tuesday, December 16. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants referred to the questions which both he and I had asked. He was answered by Mr. Allan O. Solomon, chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission, the body which will administer these pensions in the future. Mr. Solomon said, as reported on page 79:14 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Mr. Chairman, we have-or we will have-from the Halifax Relief Commission the formulas which they have been using, and which they established some years ago. I would anticipate that we would use those formulas as a starter and from there, depending again on how much money there is available for the purpose, we would eventually try to evolve a formula which we feel would be fair to all concerned, and try to relate as much as possible to the disability pensions which we pay for similar types of cases on the war disabled.
Then the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants asked this supplementary question:
Would the pensioners, Mr. Chairman, be then on a similar footing as say somebody who had suffered severe injury in the trenches in the first world war?
Mr. Solomon replied:
They are not on a similar footing financially now, and it is hard to say of course in advance if they would become on a similar footing later. But certainly we would hope to bring them as close together as we possibly can.
The answer given by the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission is reassuring, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said more or less the same thing, but in different words, when the matter was before the committee. The issue, as we all know, is important. There are now not more than 65 persons drawing these pensions. Some of us are in touch with some of these persons. On December 12 I mentioned a boy, four years old, who was blinded in the Halifax explosion of 1917 and who has been blind for 58 or more years. He is now approximately 62 years old. This man's pension has been increased a bit during the years, but has not kept pace with the rise in the cost of living; nor has it kept pace with what has happened to war disability pensions.
January 26, 1976

I think we all agree that those who suffered from the Halifax explosion of 1917 were, in effect, in the front line of World War I and that they should be treated that way. I know that veterans' organizations in this country feel that way, and Mr. Solomon and the other members of the Canadian Pension Commission feel that way as well.
I am not asking that there be an announcement in the House that these pensions will increase by a certain percentage, or what have you. However, I would like the matter to be clear. Since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is here and has not yet spoken at the third reading stage, he can speak now and I hope he will make it clear that under this legislation the Canadian Pension Commission has the authority that Mr. Solomon said to the committee he believes the commission has.
As I pointed out when I spoke on December 12, I do not think it is good enough for us to make the Canadian Pension Commission a bookkeeping agency that merely carries on what has been decided, because it is a dynamic situation; there are these 65 people still alive and there could be situations in which survivors with dependants might be making new applications for pensions. I want the Canadian Pension Commission to have the same authority to consider new applications and to review the levels of pensions arising from the Halifax explosion that it has with respect to war disability pensions generally.
I am sure I speak for all who are interested in this matter, interested because some come from that area or interested because some of us actually remember at least the news of that terrible explosion in 1917. We applaud the decision to find some other means than now exist for carrying on this work. We think the decision to have the Canadian Pension Commission handle the matter is wise and we support it. We also approve of the provision in the legislation that says that when the job is all done, when there are no more survivors and no more pensions to be paid out, any money left over is to go back to Halifax for further rehabilitative work in areas of Halifax that were affected by the explosion.
I do not want to suggest that I am older than members of this House think I am, but for those of us who remember that catastrophic event it is interesting to know that this work of humanitarian mercy has gone on over these many years. We are glad to know that it will be carried on as long as it is necessary. However, we hope the word will get out to those who are survivors that if they have a case for a higher level of pension than they are now receiving, the Canadian Pension Commission will have authority to deal with their claims.
I am sure all of us in the House are ready to support this bill and give it third reading. However, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance will in fact welcome the opportunity I am giving him to correct the statement he made on second reading, and make clear that under the legislation the Canadian Pension Commission will have the authority that Mr. Solomon seemed to think it would have once Bill C-78 has been passed.
Halifax Relief Commission


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, I think I join the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who voiced some concern about the answer I gave in the month of December last at the time he was asking questions. I did say that those questions could certainly be answered in committee. As he indicated himself, Mr. Solomon who appeared before the committee at that time answered as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said he did. At that time, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) was asking the same questions, and I think that he too had the same concerns. He was concerned, hoping that people who had really suffered and who were suffering or who had an aggravation of the injuries they had sustained at the time of the explosion or after could turn to the Halifax Relief Commission and ask for a revision of their case to get some increase in their pensions.
I think Mr. Solomon answered very well, and quite clearly. Contrary perhaps to the doubts I had expressed in this House he voiced an opinion that was clear and specific, and that must be noted, as the hon. member did.
As to the distribution of the amounts of money that could remain after all the pensions will be paid out, there is clear agreement, the legislation is quite clear about that. There is no doubt that the funds will be well used to improve the city of Halifax or the surroundings where the explosion took place.
The hon. member also pointed out something about the new distribution of the funds. I think that happened in the past, and we were always interested in relieving the people who were referred to us. However, I do not think I left the impression that there had been changes in that respect. I think that Mr. Solomon was quite clear, that his interpretation is still the same, that the people of the Canadian Pension Commission are becoming administrators, that there had been no change of policy in the government position but only new administrators. I agree with the interpretation the hon. member kindly gave of the remarks made by Mr. Solomon, and I think that all members want at least relief for those who suffer, even if the number is restricted. I think that the sufferings of those people are much greater than what one imagines, and I ask for the sympathy of all members of this House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize two or three points to supplement what was said at second reading stage by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), what was said in committee, and what was said in the House this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In my judgment, the Pension Commission should interpret clause 2(3) generously. That is the clause the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been discussing. I assume it gives the Pension Commission power to pay pensions to applicants for the first time and to adjust the level of existing pensions.
A great deal of time has gone by since the catastrophe in 1917. With the passage of time, cost of living increases and other factors, it is imperative that those responsible for administering these pensions review their level urgently

January 26, 1976
Halifax Relief Commission
and frequently. In addition, the Pension Commission must be prepared to receive sympathetically new applications and, indeed, applications which the Halifax Relief Commission may have turned down, because nobody is beyond mistake. I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of the Pension Commission approaching with an open mind applications which may come before it. It must not approach an application on the basis that it had been dealt with already by the Halifax Relief Commission on some day gone by.
In the interests of those who suffered from the explosion, or believe they did, it is important that they not only be dealt with fairly but believe they are being dealt with fairly. It is my hope that the Pension Commission will review the level of existing pensions urgently and frequently and will approach new applications with an open mind, including any that may have been rejected earlier by the Halifax Relief Commission.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said he would be pleased to suggest ways of disposing of any money which might be left over after the needs of pensioners, or potential pensioners, had been looked after. I wish to emphasize that the aim should be not to have anything left over, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would agree with me. The aim should be to see that the money which was set aside for the purpose is used in its entirety to help those who suffered in the Halifax explosion. I hope the Pension Commission will not worry about having money left over, in terms of helping the part of the city which was damaged, desirable though that might be. I repeat, without apology, that the Pension Commission should approach its task on the basis that the money should be made available to those who suffered as a result of that catastrophe in 1917.
I should like to emphasize, too, that the Pension Commission should take special measures to ensure that there is adequate liaison in the Halifax area to serve the needs of the pensioners and those who may for one reason or another feel it desirable to make application to the commission under the bill before us. It is important that these men and women receive adequate service and that there be satisfactory liaison arrangements on the spot. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the Pension Commission should associate with itself, in the discharge of these responsibilities, some well informed person from the Halifax area, not for the purpose of continuing to ensure that the commission continue to apply the same principles and follow the same practice as the Halifax Relief Commission-this might not be desirable in every case-but, rather, for the purpose of making certain that the commission and those dealing with applications are fully familiar with the local circumstances affecting cases.
I shall not keep the House any longer. I am prepared to have the bill passed on third reading on the basis that the commission will be fully authorized to increase existing pensions or to grant new pensions where it sees fit. As I resume my seat, I mention again the importance of the Pension Commission adopting the attitude that this money is for the benefit of those injured in the explosion of 1917, and I hope the commission will not worry about trying to

leave money over for some other purpose, desirable though that other purpose might be.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 12, 1975, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in this third reading debate following some of my colleagues, notably the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), who also made a proposal, and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) who made another proposal. This proposal was put forward by the members of our party in the hope that the government might, even at this point, reconsider its position. If they must go through with the bill in its present form, unacceptable though it is, they might within a year draft amendments or, if necessary, redraft the bill in such a way as to meet the requirements of those for whom it is intended. At the same time, it could be presented in such a way as to be understandable to the producers themselves.
The legislation before us embodies many shortcomings. Some of these were pointed out in the course of previous debates. I have just mentioned one of them: nobody understands it. It provides for payments to producers despite the fact that they might not need payments in a particular year. In fact, payments might be a disadvantage to them because they might find themselves in a higher income tax bracket. Conversely, payments are not made in years when they are really needed. Payments to those who qualify are made a year late, and that is not when they need the money; they need the money during times of depressed prices, low sales, or while the effects of natural hazards are being felt.
To remedy a few of these shortcomings, I should like to put before the House what I consider to be a proposal which should be considered. It would meet many of the objections I have noted with regard both to this bill and to the previous bill, the original Bill C-71, which was stillborn. The bill before us looks as though it might be born, but it will require immediate surgery; it will require blood transfusions and it will certainly require a lot of attention. The proposal I am about to put forward is one which I believe should be carefully considered and one which will be placed before my constituents and all others who care to participate in a discussion of this nature. I hope it will be picked up by other members of our agricultural caucus and perhaps amended or changed to suit local requirements, and thereafter will become part of a Conservative plank in our agricultural platform in years to come.

January 26, 1976
What I am proposing is a cash assurance program. Everything seems to have a short form nowadays, and if hon. members wish, they can simplify that title by calling it CAP. I think this proposal will, in time, perhaps eliminate the need for several programs now in existence. For example, my proposal would incorporate the cash advance and crop insurance programs. The scheme could be expanded so that not only grain but cattle sales and sales of other agricultural products could be included, whether in western Canada or any other part of Canada. Although initially we included only grain sales in the three prairie provinces, my proposal could be worked out in such a way as to include other areas of Canada once the rough spots have been ironed out.
My proposal would also provide an annuity for those who may not qualify for any payment. This would overcome another objection. Any producer participating in the scheme whose income exceeded the maximum would, under the proposal of the minister, not qualify for any payment. My proposal would be this: rather than the 2 per cent suggested by the minister, the annual contribution by any producer initially would be 3 per cent at least; it could be even more. Since the government is willing to pay $2 for every $1 paid by the producer, I would adopt this principle so that the government pays double the producers' amount into the fund. Indeed, contributions could be increased. Taking into account the fact that at the present time the government is proposing a 2 per cent levy on all grain sales, and that any producer with crop insurance coverage pays a premium of 4 per cent to 5 per cent of his total grain receipts, this really amounts to 7 per cent in premium.
My suggestion would be that the producer should pay 3 per cent. Since the government contributes 6 per cent, this would mean a combined premium of 9 per cent of total grain sales. At the present time, crop insurance premiums are approximately 10 per cent of total coverage. Since the government pays half the premium, this means the producer is paying roughly 5 per cent. Thus, producers would have no hesitation in paying up to 5 per cent, or whatever percentage was required, so long as they received money when they required it, that they did not receive payments when their incomes were high, and that each individual producer was considered, on merit or amount of production, and they would have an annuity if not receiving other benefits.
A look at the table of rates of premium for crop insurance discloses that the premiums, as a percentage of total coverage, drop as the number of farmers participating increases. Starting from about 1971, the premiums were roughly 15 per cent of total coverage. They went down to 13 per cent, stayed there for a little while and then dropped to 12. For 1975-76, they are down to about 10 per cent of total coverage. This represents an involvement of 93,000 farmers from 46,000 in 1971.
My proposal would be universal, because every farmer would have to contribute. At the present time, some would back away from this because there is a maximum and they would have nothing to show for their contributions when they retire. All they are being asked to do is to put money into the fund, which is a bottomless well, but my proposal takes into account producers who might reap no benefit
Grain Stabilization
over their years of operation. I have set, arbitrarily, the maximum amount of assurance at $30,000. This could be adjusted and is a matter for further consideration, but for the sake of my argument this afternoon I have set it at $30,000. If production increases, this maximum could be increased to $35,000 or $40,000.
The averaging rate would be the average income of the previous five years. As soon as a producer has taken off his harvest, he can proceed in the same way as under the cash advance legislation, go to the fund and withdraw the whole of his five-year average, or 90 per cent of it or 80 per cent. The only restriction I impose is that the withdrawal should be in denominations of 10, to make the calculation easier. The advance could be repaid at the same rate as the percentage taken out. In other words, assuming a producer's five-year average was $10,000, if he withdrew only $5,000 the repayment on any sale he makes would be at the rate of 50 per cent. If he withdrew only $2,000, his repayment rate would be 20 per cent of total crop sales. If he made a $200 sale of grain, 20 per cent of the amount would be deducted, plus the 3 per cent premium or whatever rate was established as repayment for that particular year.
This proposal would provide farmers, or producers, with the necessary cash, which is why I call it a cash assurance program. A farmer who knows his production for a particular year, and therefore his cash requirements-which can be calculated very readily-can go to the fund at a time when he needs money, rather than wait a year before his receipts can be calculated, and then perhaps receive a payment the following year when he may have a bumper crop or sales have boomed. Under my proposal for cash assurance, the producers could have cash when they required it.
During periods of low income there would be a forgiveness provision. This would be calculated the following year, since one would not know one's total receipts for the year beforehand. The amount of forgiveness would be at the rate of 9 per cent. We have the 3 per cent that the farmer contributes during the year if his cash receipts are low, and we have the 6 per cent that the government is prepared to contribute, and this is the two for one basis that the government is proposing. In other words, if a farmer's five-year average was $10,000, the forgiveness for that year would be at the rate of 9 per cent, or $900. If sales were $9,100 for that particular year, there would be a $900 payment made to him. If, for example, his sales were $9,800 and his five-year average was $10,000, his forgiveness for that one year would only be $200. In other words, this would not be a flat, across the board payment, but would depend upon the amount of the sales in the particular year.
Let me give another example. If the five-year average was $10,000, and the producer's sales were only $5,000, the amount required to bring his income up to the five-year average would be another $5,000, so his forgiveness would be $900. Therefore, the amount that would be carried forward would be in the form of a loan in the amount of $4,100.
This fund would be a loan scheme and an assistance scheme at the same time. It would also include annuity features to the benefit of those farmers making contribu-

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
tions but not benefitting. For example, the $4,100 would be carried forward following the end of the crop year, with a further six-month period of grace within which it could be repaid. If the amount had not been fully repaid, then interest charges would be added at the rate of perhaps 10 per cent, or perhaps the rate of interest for the average bond or the rate at which the government is borrowing its money.
All we will be doing is setting up a fund from which the farmers, the producers, can get money when they need it. In this way, they would not be taking out money each year and investing it in some other area, perhaps making more money in that way, while the government is searching out other sources of money supply. The producers would have a responsibility under this fund. They would have to pay a penalty of perhaps 10 per cent in respect of any unpaid advances. If, at the end of the year, a producer had quit farming or had retired without repaying the entire amount of the advances, an additional penalty or charge of 1.5 per cent per month could be added. In other words, there would be this inducement to the producer to make payments into the fund. This would be particularly true if a producer left farming and was no longer making sales from which advances could be taken, because there would be this penalty or charge of 1.5 per cent per month on the unpaid balance. These charges could be made until the entire amount of the advance had been repaid.
The scheme would also contain a provision for complete repayment in one lump sum. For example, if a producer had $4,100 lying around, not being used, he could pay off the entire advance without having the repayment related directly to 20 per cent or 50 per cent of his sales. Let us assume there are some people who have incomes which average over $30,000, or whatever the amount might be per year. They would not be eligible for advance payments or loans from this fund. After a five-year period during which a producer had not received an advance or a loan, it would become obvious that he was not a burden on the fund: he would be making contributions all the time, and in this event his contributions would automatically be reduced.
Perhaps after five years without an advance being made to the producer, his premium rate could drop to 15 per cent or perhaps 12 per cent. The producer would continue to pay the premium, but this adjustment or refund could be made by way of a cheque. After five years, or perhaps eight years, the premium rate could drop from 15 per cent to perhaps 12 per cent, and so on. In other words, the premium rate would continue to go down. I think all crop insurance schemes have a premium reduction feature built into them, and perhaps the people who operate those schemes could be of assistance to us in this regard. We could take advantage of their knowledge and experience as to the best way of repaying these benefits to the contributor. Obviously there will be some producers who will not draw benefits or take advantage of the scheme because their annual income is better than the five-year average. Perhaps they will just prefer not to take the cash assurance payment. There will be some people whose income will be lower than the average but they will manage to get by without the advances. These producers should be granted something similar to a bond status. Since the plan would be universal, all producers would be making conti-butions. This could be extended to apply to all farm sales,

including grain, potatoes, cattle, fruits and other agricultural produce.
It goes without saying that all producer sales must be recorded in a production book, including farm to farm sales. It would be absolutely essential to have a complete accounting. Since there would be many who would not take advantage of the benefits, there would be a build-up of funds. Many of these people might feel they were getting nothing for the contributions they were making to the fund. These people, under this scheme, would be making contributions on which interest would be paid. This would be an advantage to those who left the money in. Upon retirement, or perhaps after ten years of contribution, these people would be able to withdraw their equity in the fund. This would obviously be an incentive even to those who had never taken advantage of the scheme.
In the initial stages, everyone would be asked to make contributions in order to build up the fund. I am sure every farmer would be prepared to make such contributions in order to assist his fellow farmer, knowing full well that there may come a time when he will need assistance. This is just like the situation with crop insurance; a farmer may insure for year after year and never be required to draw on the plan. Perhaps he drops his crop insurance, and the next year experiences a crop failure. I am sure producers would have no hesitation in making contributions to such a scheme. This would be particularly true if they knew their funds were increasing in value through the payment of interest. They would have the advantage of being able to withdraw their equity after a period of time, increased by the amount of interest paid perhaps based on the average government bond rate.
I suggest my plan takes into account the complaints we often hear from people who say they derive no benefit from such schemes. In summary, let me recite some of the advantages of this scheme. We could eliminate the need for crop insurance and have participation by everyone. There has always been hesitancy on the part of some to participate in crop insurance plans. I am sure there would not be the same hesitancy on the part of producers to contribute to this type of plan.
Second, there would be universal participation, which could eliminate the need for crop insurance and for cash advances because cash advances and the crop insurance idea would be incorporated. Third, the plan could be expanded to include grains, cattle and other products, and all farmers in Canada. Fourth, it would provide at least an average income to each farmer every year: in other words, there would be stability of income. It would be for the producer to determine whether or not to participate if his average was below the five-year average; the onus would be on him. This would eliminate, at a time when disaster strikes, the need for petitions to be submitted to the government and the government finding itself in the awkward position of treating these people as if they were an underprivileged group asking for a hand-out.
Fifth, there would be an incentive to produce and carry on good farming economics, because as sales increase even over the five-year average, so does the average income increase. There would be an incentive for the farmer to
January 26, 1976

produce over and above his five-year average and not wait for a forgiveness, because if his sales are over the five-year average, his next year's average and eligibility would increase. Sixth, no premiums would be collected during low-income periods. I am suggesting that there be this forgiveness amount which I have already calculated. At a time when money is needed, the producer should not be asked to pay premiums. The difference is that under the proposal of the government, at a time when there is most need, an additional half per cent is added. That is an absolutely backward step.
Seventh-and this is a very important point-each producer would know precisely how to calculate his five-year average using total sales during this period, including farm to farm sales. Even to this date, despite all the studies carried out; most members of the House still are unable to figure out the formula. All that would need to be done under this proposal would be to tabulate the total sales over the past five years and work out the average. This would make it possible for people to learn what they might expect. Eighth, if no assurance payment is taken, premiums would be reduced. In other words, there would be an incentive not to take any money, because the premiums would be lower. Ninth, it does not pay producers to increase revenue during periods of high income and then have to repay the money in the form of income tax, at higher income tax rates. Producers would have a forgiveness provision and assured income during depressed periods, all economic factors considered.
What will happen under the government's proposal is that if the producers have a bad year, according to the way the minister has figured it out now, the calculation will be made a year later, and if in the meantime they make large sales and received payments, all the money will go back to the government in the form of income tax at higher rates. In my proposal there is an attempt to avoid this. Tenth, to those who do not benefit directly, this proposal assures a return on equity while the producers would be involved in a plan which would help others in need in the industry.
In other words, under the proposal I am putting forward if, for one reason or another, because of regulations, the fact that they do not wish to participate or because their sales continually increase because of good management, good luck or what have you, they do not need to take any funds out, then they should be paid not only their equity because it was used to finance others, but should be paid at the bond rate or at some other figure that would be reasonably close to the bond rate for that period.
I have set forward what I believe is a proposal which takes into account the majority of the objections heard by members of the committee when they travelled to western Canada. I think the plan is considerably simplified. It eliminates the need for two other different schemes. It takes into account the objections of those who felt there was no advantage to them. I think that this proposal, if it is not acceptable to the government at this time, should be placed on the record for the benefit of those who may wish to consider it. There may be those who would wish to amend it. Unlike the minister, I would be only too glad to receive suggestions concerning improvements.
I believe I have covered the majority of the objections which have been presented to date. I believe there is a need
Grain Stabilization
for some sort of cash assurance program, but I certainly do not believe it should be the type of proposal the minister has put forward. The proposal of the minister is confusing and at times would place the farmer in a dilemma. It will not meet the requirements of the western producer. I hope my proposal will be given consideration. I hope that in the months to come the farm groups will consider it, and prior to the next election we may put it forward in a polished and refined form if the minister does not accept these changes now.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few moments of the time of the House to register the reason I cannot support this bill. The bill might have been of some value had it been oriented differently and had got to the nub of the problem, which is how to stabilize the individual farmer's income at a time when he needs it. This stabilization bill does not recognize that the western grain industry is made up of some 200,000 farmers or managers. It treats them as if they were one incorporated whole.
This bill would waste a great deal of money that could be used in a better way. This type of bill would be more suitable if the industry were dominated by two or three large corporations or production units, as is the case in respect of the automobile industry. However, this is not the case. The agricultural industry is made of many individual units. I think this is the weakest part of the bill. It will not meet the needs of the producers for a very long time and certainly will be subject to change.
Furthermore, taking in the six main grains and oilseeds upon which the pay-out is based and the premiums deducted really assumes that all farmers in the grain growing areas of the prairies have the same farming practices. Of course, this is not so. There are very large farms, but with a great deal of difference in productivity one from the other, this diversification, in the long run, makes for a very good agricultural industry, which is much better than any of the monolithic structures such as those of the U.S.S.R. The bill does not recognize the great difference between the individual farmers concerned.
As one who comes from a parkland area, I must say that the mechanics of the pay-out will tend to discriminate against those who farm and live in the parkland areas of the various provinces. The reason for this is quite obvious. The production of wheat there is not as great, compared with the production of coarse grains, barley, oats and oilseeds, as it is in southern Saskatchewan, parts of southern Manitoba, and Alberta. Yet the condition which will trigger the pay-out will largely be set by the situation with regard to wheat, because wheat accounts for something like 70 per cent of the total grains income covered by this bill. Because the plan makes no allowance for the fact that while wheat is the dominant grain involved, individual producers of oilseeds and coarse grains, particularly in the parkland areas, could find their incomes reduced, but if the wheat income remained high, there would be no pay-out whatsoever.
This stabilization bill is an attempt to correlate and consolidate the many different plans which have been introduced in the last 25 or 30 years to provide a measure

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
of stabilization to the grain industry. For instance, PFAA dates back to 1939 or 1940. I think, on the whole, that program was reasonably successful for its time, and I still think that elements of PFAA should have remained on the legislative books, because I found it was especially effective in helping very small producers. While many of these small producers may, in a sense, be social problems, they are very necessary in adding to the sum total of farming; but they are not likely to take advantage of this program. PFAA did help the very small producer who never got around to buying crop insurance and who was not a good enough manager to take care of things as well as he should. He found that PFAA was very useful to him.
Acreage payments were quite effective in many ways. They did not come automatically every year; therefore, they did not have built into them the system which the stabilization bill will have-an increase in the saleability of land. In other words, the capital cost will eventually reflect the amount of money paid out under this plan. The assistance on storage of grain which costs, relatively, a lot of money and which it was alleged made the grain handling companies storers of grain rather than sellers, contributed a good deal of money which presumably assisted farmers. It cost the federal treasury a fair amount of money. Presumably, some or most of it eventually benefited farmers because it at least took the grain off their hands; and as most grain handling companies belonged to the farmers, most farmers should have benefited in the long run.
This grain stabilization program will not be a very effective method of providing much money where it is needed. According to some research on the effect this bill would have had on the plan had it been in effect over the last 20 years, it would have given to the farm industry an average of some $50 million per year, whereas under various programs, various governments have already paid out an average of over $70 million per year. So grain stabilization, which is supposed to improve all the earlier plans, will in fact contribute less money than was paid out under them.
Of course, the dollar value in years to come will be greater, but that will only be because of the inflation factor. In addition, this $50 million payment assumes that everyone is in the plan. There are many things wrong with the plan and a large number of producers will not find it in their interests to participate in it. Quite likely it will be much less than the equivalent of the $50 million which I mentioned. It is more likely that about one-half to two-thirds of that amount will be paid out. Unless and until a stabilization plan is introduced which will deal with the problems of individual producers and will allow them to draw on the program when they need to, that is, when their economic conditions are such as to warrant pay-outs, it will be of no great value. In the future perhaps this plan could be expanded for the individual producer in some manner; only then will it become a useful tool to aid producers in distress.
During the early 1950s, when atomic bombs were being made, we heard a great deal from the Americans about more bang for the buck, which meant they wanted to make atomic bombs in the cheapest way possible. This type of program will mean a lot of bucks for a small bang, because it does not single out the needs of the individual producer

and separate him from the mass. For those producers who want to opt out, the government is obviously not making it very easy. I am told they will have to write to the Canada Grains Commission in Winnipeg. At a meeting in Regina a week or two ago, that is what an official from the minister's department said. However, there will be no soliciting and no reminding individuals that if they wish to opt out, they have the right, and they will not be told who they should contact. This is typical of the sleight of hand of government departments and some governments.
Each producer will have to make up his own mind whether he should stay in the plan. Frankly, for the older producer who may be retiring in another ten years or so, there does not seem to be much advantage in staying in the plan. There is no provision for recovery of premiums at death, or retirement from farming, although I believe there would be a benefit for two years after ceasing farming, or a producer could sell. However, it will be a very nebulous thing to sell his land because of the relatively small amount of value it will carry. If there were a better provision for recovery of premiums at death or upon retirement, this bill might be more acceptable. In particular, I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that producers must make their own decisions.
The minister has failed, in this legislation, to provide a reasonable solution to the problem, because he has insisted that a global plan is the only plan which can be introduced, when in fact it must be related to the needs of the individual farmer before it will reach its greatest value to the grain industry. We have crop insurance which is based on the individual. Why not introduce a plan that would allow the individual farmer to capitalize on the program and use it to best advantage when he needs it, rather than give him a large amount of money? That might often fall in the best year he ever had, and then he would have to give it back to the government through income tax. I would predict that this plan, tied to the global plan as opposed to the individual plan, will return, through income tax, a large portion of the money paid out. I think we must consider, first of all, what is best for the individual and what it will take to bring him through a tough economic period.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us for third reading is one that we have dealt with in this House, off and on, for the past six years. As a new member in 1968, it was one of the first pieces of legislation that I dealt with, and I believe in 1969 or 1970 we had first reading of the old stabilization bill. We all know the history of that bill, Mr. Speaker. It was opposed by every farm organization, wheat pool, the Federation of Agriculture and the Farmers' Union, as well as by this party and the Conservative party. As a result, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was forced to withdraw it. Now we have the daughter of that bill, in different form. I think this one is better than the old bill because it recognizes a few of the deficiencies in the old bill, but still there are some things which need to be improved, and in this third reading debate I want to point out a couple of them.
For years this party has said that in this country we need a universal farm stabilization bill to cover all commodities. For years, too, the farmer has faced the problem
January 26, 1976

of fluctuating income. He never knows what he will receive for his crop when he plants in the spring, or what he will receive for a hog when it matures. I think it is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, along with provincial legislators, to devise a scheme whereby the ups and downs in the market pattern are smoothed out for the producer, so that he will know at the beginning of the year what income he is likely to receive. From growing up on a farm, and through my experience in representing a rural riding, I know the farmer would produce a lot more food than he is at present if he could be assured of the price he would receive.
Mr. Speaker, I was shocked by a comment made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) today, to the effect that there is too much dairy production in this country, too much skimmed milk, and that the world cannot use any more. If we have the capacity to produce, it should be an objective of the Department of External Affairs and our foreign aid programs to encourage farmers to produce as much food as possible can, to help feed the hungry of the world as well as a lot of people in this country. A few months ago a report on poor children pointed out that many in this country are not receiving adequate nutrition.
When we talk about the stabilization of farm income in this country, we should also talk about a food policy. I am very concerned that in 10 or 15 years, unless we start a national plan to maximize production, build storage capacity and a delivery system, we may face a shortage of food in this country. The Minister of Agriculture has said that he does not like to see eggs go rotten, or a surplus of powdered milk, but we could not deliver them to Bangladesh or other countries which need them. That is a sad commentary on a society that can produce tons and tons of surplus food but cannot deliver it to areas of the world where people are dying of malnutrition, and cannot even deliver it to the children of this country who are suffering from malnutrition because there is not adequate milk or food in the school system.
We talk about stabilization of farm income in this country and say it is a worthy objective, but the only way we will get it is through a program that will guarantee the farmer a stable price for his produce. There are many examples of farmers who would like to produce hogs, for example, or to expand or diversify, but they dare not because prices are depressed or because of the uncertainty of the market. They cannot afford to make a huge initial capital investment under these circumstances. Your Honour is aware of many of these problems, coming, as you do, from a riding in the centre of the huge farm belt in southwestern Ontario.
As parliamentarians, we should be able to provide farmers with the same security as other people in this country. The worker has the trade unions to bargain for him, he has unemployment insurance plans, and so on. The business community has all kinds of guarantees. The Conservative party gets upset when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) makes a revelation that any idiot knows is true, that the free market no longer exists. We all know that there are many kinds of support for the business community. There ought to be adequate support for the farm population as well. This party has spoken of farm income stabilization, marketing boards, maximizing production, more adequate
Grain Stabilization
world aid programs, food banks, and so on. I believe this bill takes only a small step in that direction. There are many principles that should be incorporated in an adequate farm income stabilization program.
Since this Minister of Agriculture took office there has been no sign of a long-term agricultural policy for the country. There have been only ad hoc measures. There has been no concerted effort, and no indication of the direction the minister intends to take us. We get bits and pieces of various programs, but no long-term program. When the bill was introduced, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board called it a significant step. In a paper issued by his office in September, 1974, he said he had four general objectives for the plan. I should like to go over them and point out some of the deficiencies in the bill.
The minister said that he wanted to protect grain producers in designated areas from uncertainty and variation of return due to temporary market fluctuations. Such an objective is honourable. The minister is talking about this plan as an income insurance plan. He is going to average cash flow for farmers for any particular year over the previous five years. It is an honourable objective, but I am afraid the plan does not live up to it. The way payments are made out of the plan can affect a lot of farmers in this country. The plan is based on aggregate income. This means that if the aggregate income applying to growers of the six grades of grain falls below the previous five-year average, there will be a pay-out to all participants in the plan. That sounds good. But what is to happen to rapeseed growers if the bottom falls out of the rapeseed market? I suggest that if the bottom of the rapeseed market falls out, even though the price of wheat may go up, or the price of the other five commodities remains stable or goes up, the rapeseed producer will not receive a pay-out even though his income may decline drastically. That will be the effect of applying the average. You take into account the price of all grains. Wheat is the dominant grain, and the price of wheat may go up or down. But the rapeseed market may decline and the rapeseed grower will not get a pay-out from the plan. That is unfair.
The plan lacks flexibility. Farmers in Yorkton-Melville whose income declines because they have produced a lower grade of wheat, or because the market price for their wheat has gone down, will not get compensation if the average price for the other grains remains high. Of course, the converse is also true. Suppose world rapeseed prices are buoyant but wheat prices are coming down. If the average price, taken over the previous five years, of all grains produced under the plan falls below the five-year average, there will be a pay-out not just to wheat producers but to producers of other commodities including producers of rapeseed. That shows the type of logic behind the plan.
Let me draw an analogy which may help to explain some of the serious questions concerning this plan. Let us suppose unemployment insurance worked the same way. We would look at the total income of all working people of this country and, after taking into account increases in the cost of living and other factors such as the inflation rate, if it were found that the income of workers in Canada had fallen below that of the previous five-year average, the unemployment insurance fund would make payments. It
10312

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
would not make it just to the unemployed, but to all Canadian workers, including high school teachers, clerks, factory workers, and so on. The payment would be made to all, no matter if they were employed or unemployed. It would be made even to members of parliament if they were to pay unemployment insurance, which they do not. But the point is this: all those who had contributed to the plan would receive a payment from the plan. Payment would be based on the amount paid in.
Another section of the bill says that' payments from the stabilization plan are to be proportionate to the amount you contribute. As I say, if this were true for unemployment insurance, the worker who had been unemployed for a good part of the year would receive little help, because his contributions were small, whereas the man who had been employed all year would receive a large pay-out from the fund. Clearly, this bill is inconsistent with other stabilization plans enacted in this country.
What would happen if the medicare scheme were applied on the same basis? Take the man who needs expensive, open-heart surgery and runs up huge medical bills. At the end of the year he would only be partially compensated by the plan because his payments in had been low, whereas, say the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who goes into hospital for treatment of a hanging toenail-


Mr. Benjamin:: Ten hanging toenails.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -or ten hanging toenails, as the hon. member says, he can get his condition corrected and the payment out under the plan would more than cover it, while it would not nearly cover open-heart surgery. That is the type of plan being foisted on the farmers of the prairie region. Or, suppose automobile insurance was applied that way. I have not had an accident for a long time, fortunately, but let us say I receive compensation and there is a pay-out from the automobile insurance plan in Saskatchewan. I get it from somebody, say. But the driver who may have written off his car, been involved in court cases and had to compensate somebody else for bodily injury, would receive only a small pittance as a pay-out from the automobile insurance plan of Saskatchewan, if that plan worked as this plan will. That is the philosophy behind this plan.
As I said previously, the bottom may fall out of the rapeseed market and the income of rapeseed growers of my riding may fall. But at the same time the price of the other grains mentioned in the bill may stay high. Because the plan considers the aggregate price of all six grains, rape-seed producers will not get a pay-out even though they have suffered. That is not fair. What would happen if we operated medicare, unemployment insurance, automobile insurance and the educational system in accordance with the philosophy contained in this bill?
Incomes across the prairies fluctuate. Your are talking not just about one province; you are talking about Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace River country of British Columbia. You will see many fluctuations in types of crops and soil and the application of various cost factors. In one part of the prairies you may see bumper crops and in another part poor crops. The people of southwestern Saskatchewan may enjoy bumper crops and high prices, but there could be a crop failure in some other area and the

bottom may fall out of the price for the grains grown there. It would happen, under this plan, that not only those losing money would get a pay-out; those raking it in would also get it. It is the plan's lack of flexibility to which I object.
I submit that with some additional cost-and perhaps a few administrative headaches-the plan could be made flexible. It could be one which all farmers would be happy to join. This would encourage farmers to produce food not only for this country but for all the people of the world. But this plan does not work that way. Under it, payments out will be based on the amount of money you have put in.
Some members of the Conservative party are worried about our Prime Minister's gallop toward socialism. My goodness, if this is the type of philosophy the government is putting forward, it is anything but progressive. It is not the philosophy under which we send our kids to school. It is not the amount of money you can afford to put into the school system which determines if your kids are to be sent to school. I have just returned from a visit to South America and learned that the money in your pocket dictates the quality of medical attention you receive. Really, that is the philosophy of this bill. It should not be. Pay-out should not be based on what the farmer has contributed to the plan. If a farmer is experiencing difficulty, he should receive a pay-out from the plan in the same way as an unemployed worker receives unemployment insurance. This plan ought to operate as other so-called universal plans in this country operate. A plan like that would be progressive and would help this country's farmers.
On September 4 the minister said that the second objective of the stabilization plan would be to ensure that growth and development of the grain sector was consistent with the basic market forces and that the grain sector developed in a manner consistent with competitive advantage in world open markets. There the minister was talking about open market forces. He was talking about things which are really not relevant to the need for food production today. He was talking about the laissez-faire system, the market system of the world-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says does not work.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -which the Prime Minister, as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) says is not working. It has not worked for a long time. Any who do not know this are either naive, or a much more descriptive adjective could be applied to them. This is a time when we should be talking about an international grains agreement, when the countries of the world should establish long-term agreements regarding world food banks, providing food aid and working out a food distribution system. Yet this government has sponsored many plans in this country which militate against that type of philosophy. I need only mention the two-price system for wheat. I do not think the minister has to be too worried about this being a plan that will be consistent with world open market forces.
The minister says, in the same paper, that the third objective is that the plan will be complementary to the development of the livestock industry. Again, I do not see the relevancy of this. If the parliamentary secretary
January 26, 1976

speaks, perhaps he could comment on this matter as well. We see in this country the failure of a lot of people who produce livestock. When times are good, they get together and have a marketing board for their commodity so that there can be more stable production of livestock in this country. The last objective he comments on is that the plan will be based on a set of principles consistent with general objectives for agriculture which could be applied to other commodity groups. As I have already stated, I do not see that general plan coming from across the way. I do not see the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, or the Minister of Agriculture coming up with a general set of objectives as to what Canadian agriculture should be involved in. What are their plans?
I have talked about some things I would like to see in the world in the eighties and nineties, the world before us, in terms of maximization of food production, a world delivery system and a world food bank. We in this country can produce food. We can work with countries that have money in order to produce food to better the human condition of us all. I would like to know the objectives of this government. How does this plan fit into the long-term objectives of the Canadian government?
Another concern about the plan is that it leaves out of the computation of the costs of production a number of items that are very important. I notice it leaves out the interest a farmer must pay on his machinery, equipment and buildings that are necessary for the production of grain. As anyone who has visited a grain farm knows, this is a major cost of producing grain. It leaves out the 2 per cent levy, the maximum of $500 the farmer will pay to help finance the plan we are dealing with today. It also leaves out depreciation on machinery, equipment and buildings. These are very important factors in producing a bushel of grain, cultivating an acre so that it is ready to produce grain.
I received in my office this morning confirmation of what we think is an important factor left out of the formulation we are dealing with today. I received from the minister of agriculture of my province a letter containing the latest statistics in Saskatchewan. It sets out how much it is expected to cost to produce a bushel of grain. I would like to spend a few minutes looking at the actual cost of producing a bushel of grain in Saskatchewan. These statistics were compiled by the department of agriculture in Saskatchewan. This is done on an annual basis from the sources they have, such as farm organizations, Statistics Canada and other reliable sources. This is the type of work we should be looking at.
According to the statistics, the average cost of producing grain on an acre of land in Saskatchewan, in 1975, will be $57.10. I want to deal with the specific components of that. It is important that it be put on the record. The cost summary per acre of grain is as follows. Cash costs and seed, and most of these items are specifically included in the cost of production, will be a factor in the bill. There are others I will deal with later that are not. The average cost of building repairs per acre of land is 45 cents. This includes the grain bins and the other buildings a farmer must maintain. With regard to machinery and equipment, fuel and oil costs $1.25 per acre. As everyone knows, the price of fuel in this country will escalate rather than go
Grain Stabilization
down in the years to come. Repairs, tools and hardware cost an average $3.65 per acre of grain.
As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre pointed out, we hear every week, especially in the spring and during harvest, about farmers having difficulty getting machinery repaired by dealers. Parts must be ordered from great distances. This adds to the farmer's cost of putting in a crop, having summer fallow or taking off the crop at the end of the year. Custom work hired averages 55 cents. Crop expenses, less seed, averages $3.85 per acre. This includes such things as sprays and other necessities. The cost of purchased seed is 90 cents per acre. Home grown seed is $2.50 per acre. Taxes, landlord costs and overheads average $2.95 per acre. When you total the cash costs and seed, you get $16.10 per grain acre.
We then go to depreciation. That is not a part of the formula in this bill for calculating production costs. In Saskatchewan, in 1975, depreciation of buildings, and improvements, was 80 cents per acre on an average farm. Depreciation on machinery and equipment is $6.30 per acre. This adds up to $7.10 depreciation per grain acre in Saskatchewan. I made a calculation. Depreciation on those items alone, which are legitimate production items, works out to 12 per cent of the total cost per grain acre. That 12 per cent is not included in the production costs as defined by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
I move to the next item that the farmer has to pay- interest. Interest on land, in 1975, was $14.40 per grain acre in Saskatchewan. It is legitimately argued that this should not be a part of the cost of production. I accept the argument made by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, even though I know some people do not. Interest on buildings, and improvements, in 1975, is 70 cents per grain acre. That is a legitimate cost of production to be calculated under this act. Interest on machinery and equipment averages $3.80 per grain acre. That, too, is part of the legitimate cost of production. Total interest, therefore, on buildings, and improvements, machinery and equipment is $4.50 per grain acre. That is 8 per cent of the total cost of producing an acre of grain. That makes 20 per cent of the total cost per grain acre that is not included in the cost of production. It is a very relevant factor when calculating the pay-out to the producer if there is to be a pay-out from the plan. It is important in determining that a pay-out will be triggered. Hired labour averages 70 cents per grain acre, and unpaid family labour is 60 cents. An operator costs $13.70. The total labour cost is $15 per grain acre. The total cost to produce an acre of grain in Saskatchewan is $57.10, 20 per cent of which is not covered under this bill.
There is another factor that was not a factor in Saskatchewan in 1975. I refer to the 2 per cent levy that will be charged to producers when this bill comes into effect. Therefore, an additional 1 per cent or 2 per cent must be added to the cost per grain acre. This was not included in the cost of production figures. It can be safely said that 21, 22 or 23 per cent of the cost to the farmer for producing an acre of grain will not be included in the computation under the bill we are dealing with today. If the bill included some of these costs, it would be more acceptable to grain farmers in western Canada as well as to opposition members. I am sure that privately it would be more acceptable to many members on the government side. It would certainly expe-
21130- 31 Vi

January 26, 1976
Adjournment Motion
dite passage of the legislation through the House of Commons so that it could become law in this country.
1 could go on at length talking about why depreciation of these items and interest on them should be calculated and should be part of this bill, but I think hon. members get the general idea from the comments I have made and the statistics I have read into the record. There are many other things which concern me and farmers in my area about the bill, but I am hopeful that the minister will take a serious look at the arguments which we in the opposition and members of farm organizations have put up and will not exhibit a stubborn streak when analysing the arguments we have made. Because we in the opposition, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, are speaking in the best interests of the farmers. We are not being political. We are not being partisan. We are being nice guys; we are doing our work and we are doing it hard: we are putting forward constructive criticisms.
The minister, with a nice smile, is acknowledging that we always do this. I want to say to the minister that I hope he will do that in a sincere way, because if he does not, this bill will fail and it will be another black mark upon the conscience of the government vis-a-vis the farmers. I have said for so long that the farmer is the greatest gambler in the world. He gambles on the weather; he gambles on world grain prices. But why in the devil should he gamble on the Liberal party? They can change that if they would, to a certain small degree, take into account the suggestions which we and the farm organizations have made. If this bill does not work as it should, they should not hesitate to come back and put down amendments. If they do not do that, the act will not work; and if they do not have the co-operation of the farmers, the legislation will not work.
The objective must be to stabilize farm income at an adequate return upon which a farmer and his family can live and enjoy all the good things in life that the average Canadian has had for a long time without worrying about his income. At the same time, we should encourage the farmer to produce more food so that the people of this country and the people of the world can be fed, and so the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) and others are able to devise a plan whereby we can deliver that food, deliver the goodness we can produce in this country into the mouths, the bellies of those who need it, from one corner of this world to the other. If we do that, we as Canadians will have made one small contribution to the betterment of mankind.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be

raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-Social security-Family allowance-Reason for failure to follow payment method adopted in France; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Prince Edward Island ferry service-Request for report of labour-management committee; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnaty-shyn)-Penitentiaries-Millhaven-Request for report on gasing and beating of inmates.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill for a few moments on behalf of the wheat growers I represent in central Alberta, I want the minister to recognize that they are not overenthusiastic about this bill. In fact, I think they are as unhappy as I am about this legislation because of the fact that the minister did have an opportunity and plenty of time in which to bring in legislation which would have been of benefit to the prairie grain producer. Perhaps this bill will go down in history as "the lost opportunity" of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang). Surely the hon. gentleman has had enough association with the grain producers, along with his hon. friends from Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) and Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac), to have brought in legislation which could really have served a useful purpose.
I cannot understand why the minister is not prepared to listen to suggestions or to make changes which could be of benefit and serve the producers. After all, when this legislation is put in place, as I presume it will be with the support of the Liberal party, it is going to be very difficult to alter it in any way. While it is true the producers are vitally concerned about the effects of this legislation, we must also recognize that every taxpayer in Canada is interested in it, because for every dollar the producer pays, the taxpayers of Canada are putting up two dollars. I am sure that if it were not for this carrot the minister is dangling before the eyes of the grain producers, the bill would be entirely unacceptable to them.
At the present time, when producers are receiving a fair price for their investment, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board comes along and says, "We shall take away a portion of that money and put it away for you." In other words, he is acting just like a big daddy does toward his sons or daughters, saying, in other words "We do not trust you with your own money; we shall take care of it for you."
January 26, 1976

Let me assure hon. members that these people who have used their initiative and their ability to work long and hard hours, the people who have the resilience and the dedication to continue to produce crops in western Canada, have far more to offer than many of those who have been elected to the House of Commons.
I am very sorry at this time to be part of a system which is only doing a small percentage of that which is our responsibility. I feel this bill is only going a very small way toward doing what is required for the benefit of all the people of Canada, and especially the grain producers. It makes me sad when my constituents feel, because I have been elected to the House of Commons, that I am a member of the government rather than a member of the opposition, particularly when the minister will not listen to the proposals we make in an effort to make the legislation run smoothly for the benefit of everyone.
I have a comment here from a small paper in one of the finest wheat growing areas in Western Canada, Three Hills. It is as good as Saskatchewan; I do not say it is better, but it is just as good. Some of the farmers at this meeting wanted to know how the government's contribution to the program was to be raised. They also wanted to know what the chances were for a plebiscite. Other information sought included an explanation of the way in which costs of production would be calculated, and whether funds would be reimbursed when a farmer retired. These are questions which are of the utmost importance to these producers. If some type of explanation had been provided by the minister in answer to these questions, the program would have been far more acceptable. It is apparent from talking to farmers throughout the constituency that they are not greatly interested in this bill. If you want to talk about the subject, you have to raise it yourself. They are not concerned about it because they know that it is not going to do the job for them.
Had the minister communicated with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to a greater extent and tied Bill C-41 with the crop insurance program, I am sure the producers would have taken a careful look at it. Let me impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that the crop insurance commissions in western Canada are vitally concerned at this point in time about this bill and what it will do to their program. The Minister of Agriculture, both in the House and in committee, expressed with glee the fact that there was increasing participation on the part of the producers of western Canada. Now that the austerity program of the government has been implemented, it has been suggested that cutbacks will be made in the government's support of the crop insurance program. Thus, I believe the crop insurance commissions should be concerned that this will be a deterrent to the participation of producers in the crop insurance program. There may be hard times ahead for the crop insurance commissions and for those who rely on crop insurance, and this will not be in the best interests of western Canadian producers.
Another point that should be made is that if grain prices drop over a period of six, seven or eight years, the pay-out at the end will be very minimal. After an extended period of low grain prices there will be no help of any substantial nature for the producers. I should like to put on record
Grain Stabilization
what one farmer said at a meeting. He was critical about the five-year average basis for triggering payments and suggested that it would negate any substantial benefits from the program if grain markets were depressed for a long period. He also was concerned that the program might cause a degree of instability in that farmers might react by abandoning their own methods of income stabilization.
I can understand that, Mr. Speaker, in view of the complexity of this bill. Both the hon. member for Qu'Apelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) expressed the fear of farmers in their areas that they might feel their incomes will be protected whereas in fact they will not. As both hon. members pointed out, if the scheme were operated on an individual basis, each producer would know exactly what he could expect from the program. At present, he has no way of knowing. If producers think they are being protected and they find out they are not, the situation for many producers of grain in western Canada will be chaotic.
This is why I feel the minister has short-changed the producers of this country. For example, certain regions of the country may not have had a crop for a number of successive years and the farmers' incomes may have dwindled due to circumstances beyond their control, say climatic conditions or other reasons. They would have received no income from their production. Under the present program no provision is made for such producers. They will not be provided with that which will keep them in business.
The problems of the western grain producers are becoming ever larger and more complex, and adequate programs of one form or another must be put in place for them. They should, on an individual basis, be able to put money away in the good years, tax free, and withdraw it during periods of low production, and at lower cost. There are so many ways that the program could have been made to work and be of benefit to the producers. Nevertheless, the minister is adamant: he is not going to change any provisions in the legislation. He has been very difficult to deal with all the way through passage of this bill, whether at second reading stage, in committee or at report stage. In fact, in committee he changed his position. He first said that crop insurance payments would not be included in the agreements, but had to reverse himself on advice from his departmental officials.
We are dealing not only with legislation that will not do the job it should, but with legislation that will supersede existing legislation and will hinder the enactment of legislation that could be put in place in years ahead. It makes one very sad to realize that the grain growers of western Canada are being shortchanged, which is what is happening at the present time.
I hope the hon. member for Assiniboia, when he rises to speak on this bill, as I presume he will, will try to prove why the government is unwilling to bring in a program that will support crop insurance. Had the Minister of Agriculture accepted our suggestions when he brought in the crop insurance bill, we would not need to pass this legislation today. It is because of this lack of imagination on the part of the Minister of Agriculture that we are dealing with this stabilization bill. I go on record, Mr. Speaker, as saying that it is also because of the lack of

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
imagination on the part of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that we are dealing with this legislation down the road. There is no way the legislation can fulfil the purpose slated for it or be satisfactory to the grain producers. As a result, it will not get the support that is required to make legislation like this work.
Another of the shorfalls of the legislation is that it will mean a further increase in bureaucracy. This has been a sore point for me. Right from the start I felt that any program like this should be initiated and administered by the crop insurance commissions of the three prairie provinces and the Peace River bloc in British Columbia. There is absolutely no reason in the world why the program could not be administered by the headquarters of the three prairie administrations, instead of Ottawa. If this government had wanted to give a certain degree of authority to another part of Canada, this would have been a prime area to do so, as well as a wonderful opportunity for the three prairie crop insurance commissions. But no, the minister refuses to do this; apparently he wants the legislation to be under his thumb.
Perhaps the reason is, and I can think of no other, that the minister wants to build his own empire. There is absolutely no room in the political arena for any individual member of parliament, minister of the cabinet, or anybody else, to build an empire, because the minute you start doing that, the administrative efficiency deteriorates and the government does not then operate for the benefit of the people. We are here with the challenge to bring in good legislation which will be for the benefit of those we have to serve. I am sorry to say that is not the case in respect of this legislation. I want the people that I represent to know that I am unhappy with this bill because I know that at some time in the future we will have to deal with this matter again. There are too many inadequacies in this measure for it to serve any useful purpose.
As I pointed out to hon. members this afternoon, there are many people in their senior years in the agricultural industry who will never take advantage of this legislation because some time in the near future they intend to retire. Most of them will never participate in this bill, short of there being a disastrous drop in either production or the price in future years. Soon after they retire there is no longer any way in which they can benefit from the premiums they will have paid. For that reason alone I think this is bad legislation.
I am sorry this House has been unable to bring forward a better piece of legislation. That being the case, I should hope that in the not too distant future we will deal with this matter again, as I am sure we will, because the producers will demand that the inequities in this bill either be reconciled or corrected with future legislation.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member seeking the floor to participate in the debate?


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should point out that this can only be done, as the hon. member has already spoken, with unanimous consent.


Ralph Goodale: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on third reading. Is there no right to reply?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to reply, he can only speak at this stage with the unanimous consent of the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have already spoken.


Ralph Goodale: Just for my own information, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would clarify the ruling so that I will understand your position. Perhaps, my being a new member, you would explain the situation to me. I have not participated in the debate at third reading stage, and I would appreciate it if you would clarify the ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member takes the trouble of looking at Beauchesne's fourth edition, he will find that the right to reply only applies to a substantive motion.


An hon. Member:: That is not the rule in question.


Ralph Goodale: I have not spoken on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thought the hon. member said he had spoken on third reading.


Ralph Goodale: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am very sorry. I will recognize the hon. member. I had him on my list as having spoken.


Ralph Goodale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the list to which you have referred is one where time ran out before everyone on it had been given the opportunity to take part in the debate before the recess. At that time my name did not come forward and I did not have the opportunity to speak during the debate. I thank you for recognizing me at this time.
I must say, as I begin this afternoon, that I have been interested to hear the comments by members of the official opposition party as well as those by members of the NDP regarding the legislation before us. To a certain extent I regret, not the substantive comments they have had to make about some of the problems they see in the future in respect of grain farm income, but the pessimistic and rather gloomy tenor and tone of what they had to say. I do not share that pessimism. I believe very sincerely that this particular moment is an historic one, historic for this parliament and for the government of Canada because of the nature of the bill we are dealing with now and, most importantly, it is historic for the grain producers and the economy of western Canada. We are now nearing what I hope will be final approval in the House of Commons and, hopefully, soon approval in the other place as well, for Bill C-41 respecting the Western Grain Stabilization Act. I say "hopefully" with some optimism, as I sense in the House this afternoon a willingness to give this measure third reading in a fairly short period of time.
Recently, grain producers in western Canada have gone again on record in a very clear and categorical way with
January 26, 1976

their wishes in this respect. I think it is important to take account of this. Farmers have, once again, made it abundantly clear in the past few weeks that they support this legislation, that they want it and want it as soon as possible. I hope this expression of opinion will carry some weight with all hon. members of this House. I should first like to refer to a press report which appeared in the Thursday, December 19, edition of the Regina Leader-Post under the headline, "Pool Supports Bill". I should like to quote part of that report, for the information of hon. members, as it appears in the Regina Leader-Post as follows:
The board of directors of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has called on all members of parliament to facilitate passage of the federal government's grains stabilization bill. The pool directors are concerned that provisions of the plan be passed into law as soon as possible.
The directors stated that ample time and opportunity has been provided for all interested parties wishing to suggest amendments to the stabilization bill. "Saskatchewan Wheat Pool notes that the House of Commons standing committee on agriculture held a series of hearings throughout the prairie region this past summer in which opinions of farm people were heard and proposed amendments discussed.
In addition, various farm organizations and individuals have advanced their views on the subject in briefs and other representations," the directors said.
The article goes on at some length. That is a very important expression of opinion which I hope will find some favour in the House as we consider this measure. I would also like to quote from a newspaper article that appeared recently in the Manitoba Co-Operator under the date January 15, 1976. This is a very important farm newspaper published in the province of Manitoba. Under the headline, "Farm Bureau Urges Income Stabilization", the article reads:
The representatives of the bureau also endorsed a resolution which called for a recommendation to go to the federal government that the western grains income stabilization bill, known as Bill C-41, be adopted at an early date and certainly prior to the completion of the current session of parliament. The bill is in its third reading at the present time. The meeting directed that letters urging the passage of this legislation be sent to Mr. Lang, agriculture minister Eugene Whelan, and the leaders of the opposition parties and all members of parliament from Manitoba.
Finally, I should like to put on record sentiments expressed recently at a very important annual meeting of farm organizations in western Canada. I am referring to the Western Agricultural Conference which involves members of the Unifarm from Alberta, members of the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, the Manitoba Farm Bureau and United Grain Growers. As a result of their annual meeting held recently in the west, this organization at this conference forwarded a message to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board which reads as follows:
Western Agricultural Conference members meeting in Regina January 15 adopted the following policy:
"That the grains stabilization legislation be adopted at an early date and certainly prior to the completion of the current session of parliament."
As I say, that message was from Alberta Unifarm, the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, the Manitoba Farm Bureau and United Grain Growers. I must say I found that expression of opinion from a very broad crosssection of the grains industry in western Canada to be persuasive, and I hope other members of this House will
Grain Stabilization
find the same kind of import in those words from these various groups in the west. These words are really a repetition of the full support for Bill C-41 which came through very clearly in our committee work on the legislation. I think, for example, of the very detailed, thoughtful and thorough brief presented to us by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when our Standing Committee on Agriculture met in Edmonton on June 16, 1975. The CFA put forward a careful and reasoned analysis of this bill. They discussed several specific recommendations for changes, many of which, I hasten to point out, we have been able to accommodate already in the amending processes which have gone on prior to this moment. On this important matter of farmers' support for Bill C-41, I wish to refer hon. members to the manner in which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture began its important presentation to the standing committee. It began with this paragraph, and once again I think it is important to put these words on the record:
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture supports the passage of this legislation. The federation believes it is decidedly in the interest of the prairie grain industry and the prairie and Canadian economy to have a stabilization plan of this nature.
That is how the CFA began its presentation. I think it is important to note the words the CFA used in concluding that presentation to the Standing committee. Once again I am quoting from the brief presented to us on June 16 in Edmonton:
Finally, but very importantly, we recommend the plan enter into force for the year 1975. Our members have made their wishes on this very clear, emphasizing the value they place on this legislation.
Unfortunately, we have already passed the deadline of 1975, but certainly the purport of their recommendation is that this is a good bill which should be approved by the House at as early a date as possible. I find that an important expression of opinion, coming as it does from one of Canada's most broadly based representative and producer-oriented organizations. This obvious producer-based support for Bill C-41 was a consistent theme throughout our committee work. As brief after brief came forward from farm organizations, there were a number of suggestions for changes or amendments to the legislation, but the context in which those recommendations were put forward was always the same: it was a context of support for the bill.
As I say, many suggestions for strengthening the bill were presented by many groups. Many of these ideas have already been incorporated in the amendments. It might be useful, in a summary way, to review what some of those amendments have been. For example, we have expanded the voluntary nature of the plan to ensure that new producers who begin operations some time down the road may also have full opportunity to exercise their option, if they so choose, using their own good judgment about their farm operations; to be out of the plan if that is their judgment. The voluntary nature of the plan has been expanded.
We have removed the previous limits on the participation of multiple-unit farms. We have referred the matter of interest rates and the maximum level of gross receipts to the producer advisory group that is set up under the legislation. We have undertaken conscientiously to examine the matter of regionalization about which we have

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
heard today and earlier in our discussions of this legislation.
At the report stage, in addition to a series of amendments proposed by the minister designed to simplify somewhat the mathematics involved in the bill, we accepted amendments which made specific our desire to include in the plan about 90 per cent of eligible grain sale proceeds and to require a full report to parliament at the end of the first three-year period of operation. These have been major amendments despite the comments we have heard from some in this House who would suggest that they are rather minor. They are amendments which were largely suggested to us by farm organizations which presented representations to us in our committee hearings.
We have dealt with them in response largely to these producer representations. They represent, I suggest, a sensitive responsiveness to the proposals made by the farmers and farm groups, individuals and groups which, as I said earlier, have repeatedly come forward to make suggestions for improvement, always in the context of supporting this bill and seeking to make the bill better. That much good work indeed has been done.
I should like to address a few remarks in relation to some of the comments we heard today, and on the occasion before Christmas when we had a chance to discuss this legislation at third reading stage, about the matter of individualizing the plan or the question of regionalization. First, I wish to deal with the matter of individualization. We have heard what amounted to two widely different approaches to this particular question, one expressed by members of the New Democratic Party and the other expressed by members of the Conservative party.
They are expressed in similar terms in that they each use the word "individualization", but I think members of those two parties would readily agree that the approaches they are suggesting are radically different. First of all, the NDP approach, which as I assessed it received some support from the spokesman for the National Farmers Union who appeared before us, and by some provincial governments in western Canada, notably Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in principle amounts not to a grain income stabilization program or a commodity stabilization plan in any way, but really to what is more properly described as a guaranteed income scheme which has, as I view the situation, three rather undesirable attachments to it. First of all, it would be my expectation that the NDP proposal for individualization would serve to eliminate what are real and legitimate differences between good and bad farming judgment and good and bad farming practices. I do not think one would find very many farmers in western Canada who would want those legitimate differences between one farmer and the next eliminated by a government plan.
Second, the NDP proposal could possibly, and I would suggest quite likely, distort or provide artificial insulation against real and inescapable production and marketing signals which producers should be able to see and hear. I think hon. members opposite would agree that was one of the most important concerns voiced by the Palliser Wheat Growers Association when that association presented its brief to us at our hearings in Regina. They did not want the plan to be artificial or distorted, or to get us away from the real world in which we live.

Finally, one of the objections I think farmers generally would have to the proposal for individualization put forward by the NDP is that it seems to me that kind of a concept inevitably would lead to greater interference in, and control over, the individual producer's operating decisions. That would be an undesirable result, and I think an almost inevitable result of the proposal they are making. I think it is an unwanted result. It certainly is unwanted from the perspective of grain producers.
Now I should like to turn to the proposal put forward by the members of the Conservative party. As I begin, I want to thank them for the conscientious way in which they have approached this question. I refer particularly to the proposal of my hon. friend from Moose Jaw who I think has done a great deal of work on this idea. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with his proposal, for reasons which I hope he will agree are substantive and reasonable.
First of all, having taken a serious look at his particular idea and the mathematics of it, and having gone through some calculations based upon what he had to say, it is my judgment that the proposal he has made would serve to reduce the level of federal contributions and commitments to the stabilization program. It would reduce the level of over-all protection for the grains industry and individual producers. Indeed, it would make the plan less effective in total. That can be seen only by going through the full set of calculations and working out what his proposal would amount to, or what his party's proposal would amount to, compared to the proposal of the government.
The mathematical calculations are rather long and detailed, but when you come to the final line and compare the value of the government's plan, on the one hand, with the value of the alternate proposal on the other, the figures are very clear. In the long run, the net protection for the grains industry or for individual producers would be substantially less under the proposal put forward by my hon. friend from Moose Jaw on behalf of the Conservative party. So, clearly, this business of individualization is not an unmixed blessing. It may be simpler to explain if you can put it in those terms, but it does not lead simply to a better plan for western farmers.
On the matter of regionalization, as opposed to individualization, I think I can deal with that matter very simply once again by referring to a specific recommendation on this point made to the government and to parliament by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when that organization appeared before us. On page 3 of their brief they recommend that we provide for intensive study of the regionalization option and the legislation for its adoption if this should prove desirable.
They were not suggesting that we march forward immediately with regionalization, but that we look at it seriously, recognizing that it too may not be an unmixed blessing, and that we study the question very carefully before going forward with it. It may well have some merits, and hon. members have discussed those potential merits in the House on many occasions, but CFA suggested that we look at it carefully, analyse the pros and cons, see if it can be feasibly and reasonably done, and then, if that proves to be the case, that some time later down the road
January 26, 1976

we go ahead with it. That is a reasonable recommendation, and indeed before the standing committee the minister made it clear that that kind of examination of the question would be undertaken.
We have heard a great deal in this House today and on previous occasions about the cost of the administration which will be involved in handling the western grain stabilization plan. This could be of some concern because we have heard a great deal about thousands of bureaucrats descending upon the west, interviewing farmers, causing them a great deal of extra fuss and bother, and about extra costs mounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars every year going down the drain in the administration of this plan. Those have been the stories and the rumours, and they may be entertaining, or in some circles politically popular, but they are simply not factual; they are not true. In the first year or two of the program naturally some extra expenses will be involved in the start up process, and some extra costs may be incurred in the survey work which will have to be done at the outset, but once the plan is in place and functioning it will be interesting to look at the facts and to see what the presently projected administrative figures turn out to be in reality.
The estimate at the present moment is that the permanent administration of the western grain stabilization plan will involve some 12 to 15 people. It is planned that they will be located in a rather small office of the western grain stabilization administration located in the Canadian Grain Commission building in Winnipeg. A total cost of something in the range of $300,000 per year on an ongoing basis is likely to be required for the administration of that office and of the plan.
Some argue, as we heard earlier today in the discussion by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), that the crop insurance programs would be a more desirable mechanism for the administration of a plan of this kind. It has been suggested that that would be a cheaper and more effective way to administer an income stability program. If the matter were that simple I think we might be inclined to follow the suggestion of my hon. friend and of crop insurance boards elsewhere in the country, but the facts simply do not support the case.
It is interesting to consider some of the specific figures. I refer to the figures for 1975-76 and the cost of administering crop insurance programs in the three prairie provinces. The important figure to consider is the projected administrative cost per insured farmer for the year 1975-76. First, for the province of Alberta it is estimated that the administration costs will work out to be something very close for $80 per insured farmer. For the province of Manitoba it is estimated that the administration costs per insured farmer for 1975-76 will work out to something in excess of $80 per insured farmer. In Saskatchewan the comparable figure is something in the range of $65 per insured farmer.
When we consider the administration of the western grain stabilization plan and include all the feasible costs which could be involved, and based upon certain assumptions about participation levels in the plan, it works out that the projected cost per insured farmer under the western grain stabilization plan is something in the range of $11 or $12 per insured farmer. That is $11 or $12 compared with $65 for crop insurance in Saskatchewan and with
Grain Stabilization
approximately $80 for crop insurance in Manitoba and Alberta.
Those figures are pretty important, and I think they show that the administration of this plan is likely to be substantially less costly than the crop insurance programs now in place. It is interesting to note as well that all administrative charges for the western grain stabilization plan are not borne by the fund established under the legislation, but rather by the general treasury or the general revenues of Canada, by the taxpaying population of the entire country. It will not be borne by the specific goal oriented contributions made by government and by individual producers to the stabilization fund.
Finally I wish to deal with a matter which has been raised in the course of this debate, and I think it is important. It has to do with the complexity and detail involved in this legislation. It has been suggested that it is too long, detailed, and complicated. To begin with, what we are dealing with is a long, detailed, and complicated problem. It is a problem which goes back to the very beginnings of western Canada. We are all familiar with that cyclical pattern of grain incomes-up one year and down the next-which shakes the western grain industry to its very boots.
Our problem is not a simple one. It is a fundamental challenge which has faced the grain industry and successive governments of various political stripes in this country over the years. It is not a simple problem to solve in just a few words or with a simple plan. It is a complicated problem requiring a detailed and, I suggest, complex approach.
It has been suggested that the earlier bill which came forward some four or five years ago was simpler than this one. This suggestion refers to the old bill, C-244, but I hope hon. members will also remember in comparing that bill with this bill that the older bill was a compulsory plan. Producers and other people suggested that this plan should be voluntary. We have made it essentially voluntary, but by doing that we have necessarily added some complexity to the legislation.
It had been argued that Bill C-244 of four or five years ago was defective because it was on a gross basis and not on a net cash basis. That argument was accepted by the government, and the bill has been improved. It is a stronger bill because it now takes into consideration the cost of production. It is based on the net cash position of farmers, and because it is improved in that respect it has also necessarily become more complex. Good features which improve legislation also, unfortunately, add to its complexity. That is a fact which is inescapable.
Also important is that despite the defect which some hon. members see, and despite the fact that the legislation is complex, there is also a very important advantage in that because everything affecting the calculations is in the bill. It is all spelled out in detail for farmers, parliamentarians, and everyone in the country to see. Nobody can change those calculations. Nobody can change the rules without coming back to parliament to do so. I have heard hon. members opposite complain rather bitterly about the fact that government tends to do so many things by regulation and by orders in council. Well, this is one measure where
10320

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
that is not so because everything affecting the calculations is specifically spelled out in the law itself.
I do not deny that this bill is complex. I quite agree with hon. members that it is a long and detailed bill. However, if it is complex I suggest to hon. members on all sides of the House that that necessarily places an important burden on each one of us, not necessarily to go out and sell the bill if we are not inclined to do that, but at least to go out and explain it factually and rationally to producers in our respective constituencies across western Canada so that they, at least, can have the facts and the basic information before them, and so that they then can make a rational judgment for themselves about the grain stabilization plan. We on the government side ask hon. members to carry out that responsibility. We do not ask them to go out and promote the bill if that is not deemed to be in their political interest, but at least to go out and explain the facts rationally and fairly so that producers will have a full and fair opportunity to exercise their judgment under the legislation.
Hon. members might ask how is that to be done, how we suggest they explain the legislation. I think it could be done in a number of ways, and just for the information of the House I should like to tick off a few of those which hon. members might find interesting.
This is one of the ways in which that particular effort of explanation and information was carried out in the constituency of Assiniboia. Hon. members will recall that the bill was introduced on December 4, 1974. Ten or 12 meetings were then conducted across the Assiniboia constituency. Farmers and the public were invited to discuss the legislation in its initial form in January, 1975. Then there was a province-wide open line radio program on CBC where the same general discussion was invited on the bill as presented to parliament in its original form. Following that, across the length and breadth of Assiniboia and other constituencies, because media patterns happen to overlap, there were at least seven detailed articles in weekly newspapers telling in a fair and unbiased way what the stabilization plan was all about.
Then there was a series of news releases and press reports advertising the hearings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture to be conducted across Canada. I have heard hon. members complain that nobody knew about these hearings, that they were secret and that farmers were not given a chance to appear. But those hearings were advertised in all the weekly newspapers in Assiniboia constituency. I did a head count on one occasion, and most of the people in attendance at our hearing in Regina, in the middle of the hearing week in western Canada, were from Assiniboia.
Advertisements were placed in the weekly newspapers and paid for by the member of parliament telling of the specific calculations that would be made available to individual farmers who wanted to know what the plan would mean to them. That information was given publicly to members of parliament by the minister when he appeared before the standing committee. He extended a blanket invitation to anyone who wanted to know what the plan would mean to them. All they had to do was send

in their gross grain receipt figures to an address in Regina and the information would be provided to them. That was advertised across the southern part of Saskatchewan, which I have the honour to represent.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the early part of October, 1975, there were 12 more meetings in four days. Once again farmers were invited to attend and hear about the bill, to make comments and ask questions before final consideration in this House. Full details of the legislation were provided, a slide show was offered and leaflets were available for farmers to take home and study. There was also a question and answer period. Every corner of the constituency of Assiniboia was covered. It might be useful to mention the places involved-Avonlea, Mossbank, Gravel-bourg, Glentworth, Rockglen, Assiniboia, Bengough, Rad-ville, Milestone, Torquay, Sedley, and Weyburn.
After that there was final open line show in November on the largest privately owned radio station in Saskatchewan where western farmers were given the opportunity of discussing the legislation.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a responsibility on members to make sure that the bill is understood. I do not ask members opposite to sell the bill if they do not think it is in their political interests to do so. I think they have an obligation, however, and the government and farmers of this country can ask them to live up to that obligation, to provide producers in their area with the same kind of factual information that was provided in at least one constituency in Saskatchewan.
I see my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to belabour the point any further. We have had a good discussion. I hope the sense of optimism that I expressed earlier will not be misplaced as we come to what I hope will be the conclusion of this important and interesting debate on Bill C-41.
I want to share with the House the experience I have had with this legislation over the past year in the west. Two points are crystal clear as result of the effort at explanation, consultation, and discussion with farmers. First of all there is a broad base, a genuine support for this bill among western grain farmers, and secondly the legislation is far better known and understood by farmers than hon. members opposite would have us believe.
I think it is important to keep in mind the context in which the bill has come forward, not a context of ad hocery or piecemeal changes, but a context of important and ongoing upgrading of the grain industry in western Canada under the leadership of this particular minister for the past four or five years. It is a record of accomplishment. All members associated with the minister, particularly members on the government side, can be very pleased to acknowledge and support that record. One of the main pillars of it is the Western Grain Stabilization Act. I am sure it will stand in the history of this country as a tribute to the foresight and accomplishment of the present minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board for his work on behalf of the western grains industry.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intervene very often in debates dealing with western rural problems. Because I represent an urban riding in southwestern Ontario some members opposite may feel that I
January 26, 1976

should not intervene in this debate or that I do not know what I am talking about. The main reason why I decided to intervene briefly is because there are so many questions in my mind about how fair and equitable this bill will be to the prairie grain producer.
Another reason why I am intervening briefly is that in my constituency of Brant two major industries are heavily dependent on the prosperity of western grain growers. I refer to Massey-Ferguson and White farm equipment. During the five years that I have been a member of this House I have tried to convience the urban industrial workers in my riding who are employed by those two industries that their welfare and their future are inextricably tied to the well-being and prosperity of the western grain growers. I am not speaking specifically on behalf of the western grain grower; there are others in the House, certainly in my own party, much more capable of doing so. However, I do wish to draw the attention of the House to the link between the prosperity of the prairies and prosperity in central Canada with respect to farming and the farm implement industry.
There are many questions in my own mind, and because of them I think there should be more discussion in this chamber before the bill is given third reading. I am quite sure a lot of farmers on the prairies would like to see more debate on the bill. My party agrees with the bill in principle and I believe the Progressive Conservative party agrees in principle as well. It is the nitty gritty, the specifics of certain clauses in the bill that give the trouble.
It has taken many years to bring in this piece of legislation to stabilize prices for grain production income. Because it has taken so long I see no reason why we should not go a little further, in the hope that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board may make some last minute alterations to make the bill even more effective. That is why I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles);
That Bill C-41 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 thereof.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will take perhaps two minutes to reply to the suggestion of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). My parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), has dealt with the various points of substance made in relation to the stabilization bill before the House. I only note that the hon. member reinforces the impression of his party's continued obstruction to passage of this bill into law. That obstruction has been a mark of the NDP for many years, and the obstruction is not deserved. It is unfortunate that the NDP has brought forward once again an apparently delaying motion. I hope the House will deal with the motion with dispatch and, indeed, dispatch it.
It is strange that the small band of NDP members from the prairies have not made it clear to the hon. member for Brant that there is now a virtually unanimous voice from farm organizations on the prairies asking that this bill be passed, and specifically noting the obstruction of the oppo-
Grain Stabilization
sition and asking that it end so that this bill may become law.


William Arnold Peters: We know all about the Palliser business.


Otto Emil Lang: This piece of legislation is a form of income protection for the farmers of western Canada and will rank as a key part of a whole range of agricultural policies. Over the years I predict it will prove its value time and again. I will await the evidence of history and will take the opportunity to record for the people of the west, on every occasion I can, the kind of opposition shown by certain members from the west to the bill. I will do this in time as benefits to farmers become apparent.
This opposition is something hon. members will not be allowed to forget. It is sad to see members representing western regions allowing their political instincts to dominate them. They believe that anything that is good for the farmer will, in the end, redound to the benefit of the government and they are therefore taking the negative approach of opposing the legislation or obstructing it throughout its consideration. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Western Agricultural Conference, the membership of the Manitoba Farm Bureau, Unifarm people of Alberta, and United Grain Growers, among others, have voiced support for the bill, want it passed, and have asked specifically for opposition obstruction to end.
I therefore ask that we now put the question on whether there is to be further delay, and then pass the bill and allow it to go to the Senate to become law. I predict that hon. members opposite one day will have to admit that it is a monument of protection for the grain farmer of western Canada and one of the foremost measures members of western Canada in this House have ever had an opportunity to support. Instead of supporting it, hon. members opposite have been obstructing. That is to be regretted.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Take two minutes, as Otto did.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will take two minutes now, and the rest after eight o'clock. I will use the first two minutes in reminding the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that he had better not talk about obstruction and delay. I remind the minister that this legislation, which he considers earth shaking, was presented for first reading on December 4, 1974. Announcing the legislation the minister proclaimed it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. It was to have top priority on the government's agenda. But when did the bill come forward for second reading?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On April 28. For almost five months the bill was on the order paper at the bottom of the government's priority list. Then, after second reading was finished, the agricultural committee held its hearings. If my memory serves me correctly, the hearings were completed in the latter part of June. The House sat all July but did not deal with the committee's report at the report stage. Actually the bill was not called. It was not called until long after the House reconvened on September 30.
2 I 1 30 - 32/4

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
Because of government incompetence in handling the business of the House and the minister's difficulty in persuading cabinet colleagues and backbenchers to provide additional tens of millions of dollars for the western grain producer, this bill is still before the House instead of having been completed some time ago.
I remind the minister that over half the time wasted since this bill was introduced at first reading can be attributed to the government's incompetence in handling the agenda of the House, and recesses. The government decided, it was more important that members of parliament should go on holiday in August and September than deal with this legislation. May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave this chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, hon. members now in the Chamber are such nice fellows that I will continue my remarks in a mild vein until the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) return. In view of the remarks they were making before six o'clock, I hope they get here. They are not the type who fire their guns and then run. I am confident they will be here before my time is up. I hope they do not return just two minutes before I complete my remarks as that would not give me time to say all I want to say to their faces.
I will dwell on some items to convince members opposite to persuade the minister in charge of the wheat board to send this bill back to committee where some fundamental changes can be made in order that this will be a real grain income stabilization program.
As a minimum, the legislation would have to be amended to allow the grain producer to show as a cost of production what farmers all across Canada are allowed to show on their income tax returns under the present federal agricultural stabilization legislation for other farm products. Costs of production legally and properly determined by provincial governments, universities, and experts who compile farm production costs all include farm costs that are excluded from this legislation.
The minister in charge of the wheat board and the hon. member for Assiniboia complain about this bill not being passed quickly. I do not know how they can complain when items that are included in other legislation brought in by a Liberal government are excluded from this bill. I find that passing strange. I hope members opposite will persuade the minister to send the bill back to committee in order that clause 8 may be amended to allow the appropriate costs of production to be included.
There are several things wrong with the legislation. No bill is perfect no matter what government of what political stripe introduces it. It is, of course, the duty of opposition members as well as of organizations and individuals out-

side government to persuade it to make changes which they feel necessary in light of their experience and knowledge. There has been a great deal of difficulty trying to do that with this bill.
I remind hon. members that while the grain stabilization bill is supposed to take into account costs of production, it leaves out certain areas. Statistics compiled within the past few days show that farm costs have risen as well as farm prices. According to these statistics, farm costs have risen in excess of farm prices. Therefore a grain stabilization bill based on costs of production that leave out some of these increased costs is unfair to farmers.
In 1975, including the period of time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) were telling us to show restraint and stating that they were going to control prices and incomes, farm costs rose in a manner that in fact negated what seemed to be the good price grain producers were getting for wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and rapeseed.
The cost of farm fuels increased 20 per cent in 1975 over
1974.	Tools, hardware and repairs increased by 20 per cent and hired custom work increased by 20 per cent. Fertilizer went up in price between 25 and 50 per cent in 1975 over 1974, and chemical and sprays increased from 15 to 22 per cent.
Interest charges are specifically excluded from the legislation. Any businessman or farmer of any other product under the Agricultural Marketing Act can show interest charges on machinery, equipment, and buildings as a legitimate cost of production. However, that item is excluded from the grain stabilization bill. Farmers in the rural part of my constituency of Regina-Lake Centre pay from $500 to $3,000 a year in interest charges on farm machinery, equipment, and buildings. That is not included as a legitimate cost of production in this legislation. The minister in charge of the wheat board complains that the opposition is obstructing and delaying this bill. If you were raising any other kind of farm product, then under any other stabilization bill those charges would be considered a legitimate cost of production. Yet they are not included in the legislation before us. The minister in charge of the wheat board, the hon. member for Assiniboia, and the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) were all here during the debate but none of them have answered that question yet.
The minister in charge of the wheat board should be very happy that my hon. friend should have introduced the amendment to third reading which would allow him to speak again and answer that question. In the event, he has refused to answer during the 14 months since the bill was presented for first reading. He refuses to answer because he cannot answer.
Here is another item. When you buy an insurance policy to insure farm buildings or anything else, the cost of that insurance is a legitimate cost of production. Nevertheless, it is excluded under the terms of the bill before us. The minister, the hon. member for Assiniboia, and the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley have yet to deal with that question. There is a further item-depreciation of farm equipment, farm buildings, and farm machinery. This
January 26, 1976

is an important matter for anyone engaged in farming, primary production or business, yet it is excluded as a legitimate cost of production under the bill we are now considering.
In any year when there is a pay-out under this grain stabilization bill, that pay-out is based on the net tax flow after deduction for the cost of production. If you exclude interest charges, depreciation, and premiums on the stabilization plan you put a fair hole in the credit a grain producer should receive for his cost of production. I should like to ask any hon. member on the government side who comes from a constituency with some farmers in it, in Ontario, Quebec or the Atlantic provinces, to tell me the answer to this question: how come these things form part of the cost of production in your province but are excluded in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or the Peace River district of British Columbia?
I want to be perfectly honest with the government members tonight. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) moved the third reading amendment not only because he felt legitimate concern about what this bill contains but because we wanted the minister or the hon. member for Assiniboia to have an opportunity to tell us about the items which had been left out. They have yet to do it.


An hon. Member:: They did it during the report stage.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They did not. In fact the hon. member for Assiniboia was so stupid as to claim that the premiums paid under the stabilization bill would be counted. Then he had to get up and admit he was wrong. The hon. member for Assiniboia can read the written remarks of the minister in charge of the wheat board, but that does not mean he is right. Now that that hon. member is back in the Chamber I should like to deal with some of the remarks he made. He said the bill is historic. I will agree with that. He says farm organizations say they want the bill passed. That is correct.
Let us go into the things the hon. member said. The bill is historic in the sense that it will complete the total perversion of the whole principle of income stabilization. This being the case I suppose it will go down in history. The hon. member said farm organizations want the bill. I agreed that this was true, but there are a few other things the hon. member forgot to tell the House and I want to help him complete his speech.
He attended meetings of farm organizations, as I did, and he found out in hotel rooms and lobbies, and on the floor at those meetings, that the farm representatives threw up their hands in sheer despair and said, "Let us get this bill passed because it is better than nothing; it is an improvement over what we had in 1971, which was awful; let us get the bill passed and try to change it later on." I do not blame them for taking that attitude based on the bitter experience of farm organizations over the decades. It was just sheer desperation. The hon. member forgot to let the House know about that. He conveniently forgot to tell us that those same farm organizations which said they wanted the bill passed also said it was not the kind of bill they would like to see, the kind of bill they ought to have. That is exactly what we are trying to do in the New Democratic Party and, to be fair, that is exactly what members of the official opposition are trying to do-make this the piece of legislation the farmers deserve to have.
Grain Stabilization
I wish to mention also some points which were touched on by the minister and by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I was present at the meetings of the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture and I heard the minister in charge of the wheat board make his speech. He even nodded to me while I was there. Dealing with criticism of this bill on the ground that it rewards fortune and penalizes misfortune, he chose to put it in another manner-the hon. member for Assiniboia dealt with this before supper-saying they were trying to design legislation which would reward good management rather than good luck.
I am amused by Liberals who talk about good management, about the farmer who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. Among farmers I know, not only in my riding but other parts of the prairies, when it comes to good management one of the first criteria they use is to disregard the advice of the minister. About three years ago the minister went on the air in Western Canada advising farmers not to put more acreage into Durum. One good friend of mine listened to the farm broadcast at noon, then went out directly with his tractor and put another 40 acres under Durum. He has been doing it every year since and, by golly, the final payment on Durum this year is $2.03 a bushel. He was doing exactly the opposite of what the minister in charge of the wheat board advocated. That was good management.
The hon. member for Assiniboia talked about marketing signals, I think was the phrase. I do not know whether he is playing the grain futures or speculating on the stock exchange, but he talked about marketing signals and good management versus these proposals put forward by the Conservatives and the NDP to have the grain stabilization program put on an individual basis. He said that would create artificial distortions, whatever the heck that means.
The hon. member for Assiniboia claimed that under the program of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board the farmer can watch the marketing signals and have good management, whereas the proposals of the official opposition and the NDP would provide artificial distortions. Well, Madam Speaker, let me examine what the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board says about good decisions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Are you associating with us?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, isn't it awful. Let me tell my friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), that this is one occasion where we are as one, which makes us both feel uncomfortable when we think of a lot of other things. But on this bill we are as one, a rare occasion indeed. It shows that even the Conservatives can agree with the NDP and vice-versa; it might never happen again and probably will not. If this makes me sound like some kind of free enterpriser I apologize, and if it makes them sound like socialists I welcome it.
The hon. member for Assiniboia, the mouthpiece for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, repeated several times what the minister said about good decisions.


William Arnold Peters: He had to. The minister wrote his speech.

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes. He repeated what the minister said about what to grow and about what is going to happen in the market place. The hon. member for Assiniboia will likely be followed as soon as I sit down by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley, who will also give me the gears about good decisions in the market place and good decisions regarding what to grow. But a farmer friend of mine grows Durum every time the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board tells him not to, and he has made an extra buck a bushel on the final payment to doing so.
Following the asinine assertion of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the hon. member for Assiniboia then requires that same farmer to make good decisions and to look at the signals that he gets, not about the market but about the weather. If one were to follow the logic of the minister and the hon. member for Assiniboia, not only can farmers predict what the market will be and what the price will be over the next year but, dammit, they should be able to predict whether or not they will get enough rain! Not only should farmers be able to predict the weather but there should not be any drought, or too many grasshoppers, coyotes, Russian thistles, gophers or Liberals, and they should be able to make good management decisions as to how many acres of each kind of grain to grow.
It is just as difficult for the best grain producer in western Canada to make an intelligent management decision about marketing and prices as it is about the weather. Which brings me to a very sensitive subject, this whole business of the market and whether or not it is working. We have all heard a great deal about this in the last two or three weeks, and I hope my hon. friends opposite appreciate the fact that the NDP has not had much to say about that. We have been saying ever since 1932 that the market system has not been working. Then we had this terrible insult to our intelligence when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) confirmed in a speech he made what we have been saying for 40 years.
To ask that farmers make good management decisions in the market place-in the market system, to quote the Prime Minister-contrasts with what the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the hon. member for Assiniboia say. There has to be some kind of contradiction there. My problem is that I do not want either the Prime Minister or the other two hon. gentlemen as my friends in that argument, but it does illustrate what nonsense the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the hon. member for Assiniboia tried to put over on this House before supper time.
Let me return, Madam Speaker, to an issue that the minister raised just before six o'clock, and I will use up my last few minutes on it. The minister talked about obstruction and complained that the New Democratic Party had moved a third reading amendment. For all I know the official opposition will move another, and God bless them if they do because this legislation needs to go back to committee for amendment. Not only are the grain producers involved but taxpayers all across Canada, with a minimum government contribution of $200 million.
This bill was given first reading on December 4, 1974. The minister has complained about obstruction and about

how the opposition were delaying the grain stabilization bill, but it was not called for second reading until April 28 or 29. April 29 was my birthday, but anyway some four and a half, almost five months, had elapsed since first reading. I remind the House that it first sat on September 30, 1974, and some two months and one week went by before first reading on December 4. Another four and a half months went by between first reading and second reading on April 28. Yet the minister in charge of the wheat board says the opposition is to blame for obstructing the bill. Incidentally, Madam Speaker, do you know how many days were spent on this bill between December 4 and May 6, when second reading was completed? In that period of close to six months only nine sitting days were spent on the grain stabilization bill.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has threatened the opposition that he will travel all across western Canada saying how we have obstructed this bill. I hope he does, Madam Speaker, and I hope he comes into my riding of Regina-Lake Centre. I will meet him in Raymore, Nokomis, Lanigan, or any place else if he wants to talk about obstruction. If nine days spent on the bill between December 4 and May 6 is obstruction, I am a monkey's uncle.
Let me go a little further, Madam Speaker. The bill was finally sent to committee on May 6, being reported back on July 17, and the House of Commons met for another 12 days after that date. Was Bill C-41 called for debate? No way, Madam Speaker. In fact Bill C-41 was at the bottom of the government House leader's priority list, and I will call as my witnesses the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). In fact I will even call the government House leader as my witness.
The House continued to sit until the end of July when the government thought it was more important for MP's to have time off than to debate the grain stabilization bill which the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is claiming we are obstructing. Those poor members of parliament had to have all August and September off, and we returned here on October 14. Wasn't that nice for members of parliament to have ten weeks vacation?
This minister in charge of the wheat board says the opposition is obstructing this grain stabilization bill. If this measure had such high priority as claimed by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, why did we not proceed with it sooner? The minister might get away with that idea in Cabinet or in this House of Commons but he did not say that out in western Canada. At no time did he have the nerve to claim the opposition was obstructing the bill when he was out there. If he had tried that out in Saskatchewan they would have run him out of town-they are still going to a little later anyway. He did not try that nonsense out west because the farmers out there know better. If there are any backbenchers on the Liberal side from other than the three prairie provinces who think otherwise then they should check the records of Hansard. Let us stop any more of this kind of nonsense from the minister in charge of the wheat board who talks about the opposition delaying and so forth.
January 26, 1976

The committee had finished with this legislation on July 17. It was bad enough that the government did not do a damned thing with the bill for the next 14 days, but then the government did not call the bill at report stage until November 27. The members returned and sat on October 14, yet the minister in charge of the wheat board is suggesting that somebody is delaying the bill. I would like to know who is delaying the bill. I think it is his colleagues who are delaying it because even some of them feel that this bill is not worth whatever is required to blow it up.
Third reading of this bill was not called until December 11 and we had only two days of debate at that time. Would hon. members opposite call two days obstruction? I would ask any one of those members opposite whether two days' debate prior to Christmas could be called obstruction. The minister in charge of the wheat board said before supper that we were obstructing the bill. Here we are, 14 months since first reading of this bill, and there have been exactly 14 days counting today that we in this House have been debating the measure, and I am not through today yet. We have had 14 days out of 14 months, yet that idiot from the Canadian Wheat Board tries to tell us we are obstructing this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, if I am out of order or in contempt, that is exactly what I intended.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Apologize.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member confine his remarks to the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All right, Madam Speaker, since this bill personifies the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board I will consider that I am talking about the bill whenever I mention his name. In any event, let us put an end to this nonsense about obstructing the bill.
Let me turn now to a couple of items mentioned by that hon. member for Assiniboia who has such a convenient memory. He talked about farm organizations supporting and demanding that this legislation be passed, as suggested by that hon. member who took part in meetings of the committee on agriculture along with members of the Conservative party and the NDP, including the five meetings in western Canada. He knows full well that when asked about the passage of this legislation the answers of those representatives were invariably that the bill is better than nothing, it is an improvement over the situation in 1971, so let us get something passed and try to improve it later.
When that hon. member talks about the farm organizations wanting this legislation passed he should remember those facts. Quite frankly I am disappointed, unhappy, and even a little bit angry about the attitude of these farm organizations, and probably these words will not make me very popular with them, but that is a tough cookie. I can only say that those organizations gave up. I was going to say they caved in, but they did give up in their fight and I am very sad that these organizations in their anxiety to get
Grain Stabilization
some kind of income stabilization should ask that this legislation be passed. I am saddened that they gave tacit, if not implicit approval to this measure which will give most of the money to the rich and the least to the poor grain producers. Even my best friends in the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Saskatchewan Farmers' Organization do not want legislation that will operate in this way. Whenever any parliament, any government or any political party passes legislation, holding it up as the ideal and final things for the farmer, you can be sure that is nothing mote than misrepresentation and lying.
This legislation provides that when there is a pay-out from the funds the grain producers who have contributed the most will receive the largest pay-outs. I would ask my hon. friends opposite if they think that is the moral thing. I would ask the hon. member for Assiniboia, the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley, and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board if this is the kind of legislation they consider to be fair and decent.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) pointed out today that if you applied the methodology of this legislation to the medicare program you get the same size or a larger payment for a hangnail operation by an expensive doctor as for the person who had open heart surgery. This would also apply in the same way to unemployment insurance. If I worked full time and had been contributing to unemployment insurance all along then I would get the largest pay-out from the fund. Is that logical, civil, or even moral?
In my opening remarks I suggested that this legislation was immoral in principle. It is certainly immoral in principle and is unworkable in practice. If this is what you Liberals want, God bless you, you are welcome to it. I do not intend to stand or sit here and listen to the minister in charge of the wheat board, the hon. member for Assiniboia, or anybody else talk about obstruction and delay by members of the opposition.
I recognize that there are at least three members on the government side who are committed to the bill because they believe in it. All I ask them to accept is the fact that members of the opposition oppose this bill because they believe it is bad legislation. The minister in charge of the wheat board talked about political opportunism. I recognize and admire the abilities of the minister and I respect him for his beliefs. He is committed to this bill and is working on its behalf. I do not object to that. Rather, I respect him for his belief and his determination. I only ask that he in turn respect the beliefs of members in the opposition. We have moved an amendment on third reading and we intend to move two more, or even three if necessary.


An hon. Member:: Obstruction!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I invite the hon. member who shouts obstruction to take part in the debate. I will sic the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) after him, and then he and others on that side can sit and bleed all over the floor. Madam Speaker, any legislation that gives money to the well-to-do and deprives those who are not well-to-do has to be fundamentally wrong.

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There is not agreement. The hon. member cannot continue.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I shall be very brief in my remarks, but I could not let the remarks of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) go unchallenged. Before supper he said that this is an historic piece of legislation. There is no question about that. History records the good and the bad. It remains to be seen whether this piece of legislation is good or bad.
On this side of the House we realize that a number of farm organizations recently have been calling for the passage of this legislation. As Conservatives we are in favour of stabilization, but we are in favour of an individual program as are the organizations and individuals who gave evidence at the committee hearings as the agricultural committee travelled across western Canada.
The minister suggested that the members of the opposition have been instrumental in delaying this piece of legislation.


An hon. Member:: Balderdash.


Douglas Charles Neil: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) recited in some detail the dates on which the legislation was presented to the House at its various stages. He indicated it was first presented to the House on December 4, 1974, over a year ago. It did not see the light of day again for second reading until April 28, 1975. It did not come up for third reading until December 11 of 1975, more than a year after it was first presented. Surely no one can say the members of the opposition parties have been instrumental in delaying this piece of legislation because it is the government alone which decides when and if a particular piece of legislation will be brought before us for consideration.
We, as opposition members, have a responsibility to see that the legislation presented before parliament is good legislation. We have attempted to do this not only at second reading but in committee and at third reading. During the hearings of the committee we presented alternatives to the government. We have done the same thing at third reading, but unfortunately the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has not seen fit to accept the proposals we have put to him.
During the recess I had occasion to travel through my constituency and speak to a good many farmers. Without exception these farmers feel that a proper and adequate stabilization program should be an individual program. It would take very little work, I suggest, for the government to bring in changes to this bill which would make it a bill that would benefit individuals, and make pay-outs to individuals based on their net income rather than based on the total net income of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I said a moment ago it is the responsibility of the opposition to attempt to improve legislation. We gave the government the opportunity to do so both in committee and at the third reading stage. The government did not choose to accept our suggestions. The government now has another opportunity to make amendments to this bill so that it will be more workable and more satisfactory for the producers of western Canada. That opportunity is now, by referring the bill back to the committee for reconsideration. On this basis the members of this party are prepared to support the motion of the NDP.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise for one reason, Madam Speaker, which is that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) had some pretty harsh words to say in this House against the members of the opposition because the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) moved an amendment, and he said that we were deliberately filibustering the bill which is before us today. I had no intention of getting on my feet again but I must take a few moments to refute that statement.
This bill has been before the House, including today, on only 14 different days. If one checks back through the record one will find that some of those 14 days were not spent in their entirety in debate on this bill. I think it is unfair that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board should make accusations like he did and have them go unanswered.
Members of the opposition believe this is a very important bill for western farmers. It affects tens of thousands of families in the west, as well as many thousands of other people who depend on the production of food. If we cannot have 14 days of debate on this bill, I ask when can we have 14 days of debate in this House? Those 14 days include second reading, the report stage, and now the third reading stage. If we cannot have 14 days of debate on this bill, I ask what is wrong with our parliamentary democracy?
There were many amendments moved in respect of this bill. There were amendments brought in by the minister. Some time was spent on consideration of those amendments. We did not complain about that. I wish to register my objection to the statements the minister made between ten minutes to six and six o'clock this evening. I want to put very clearly on the record the facts, and show that the minister was not too anxious to expedite this bill through the House.
Bill C-41 was given first reading on December 4, 1974. Second reading was not called until April 28, 1975. That was almost five months later. The minister was not in an extreme hurry to get the bill through the House. There was not any obstruction then. We wanted the bill called. Opposition members asked the minister to call the bill. It was not called. It was not urgent in the view of this minister or of the government house leader. How the devil can he have the nerve to stand up in the House today and criticize us for moving one amendment, an amendment moved with sincerity by an hon. member who is concerned about this bill and the effect it will have on western farmers and, in the case of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), on people in his riding who manufacture farm machinery?
January 26, 1976

This bill was debated for nine days or parts thereof at second reading stage. It was sent to the committee May 6, 1975, and reported back to the House July 17, 1975. It was not called for report stage until November 27 despite the fact it was reported back here on July 17. We are looking at about four or five months before this bill was called by the government. How can the minister legitimately level a charge at us for delaying the bill? I would like him to say that in my riding. I invite him to my constituency to debate that issue any time, anywhere-at his choosing-or on any open line show in the province of Saskatchewan.
I am replying directly to the points made by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Report stage debate took place and only lasted two days. That is not excessive. I have been in this House seven and a half years, and I have seen many report stage amendment debates lasting longer than two days on business much less significant than the bill with which we are dealing in the House today. It may have a drastic effect on the farmers of western Canada.
The minister did not see fit to have his House leader call this bill for third reading until December 11. At that time we spent only two days debating the bill. Let us not forget it was reported back to the House on July 17 and took that long before we were able to deal with it at third reading. Parliament sat until about December 20, just before Christmas. I know this bill was a low priority and sat at the bottom of the priority list on more than one occasion. I know this from talking to our house leader who has conversations with the government house leader. Now it is back again. This is the fourteenth day, and if the government is interested in expediting the passage of this bill the minister should not make statements which are totally untrue and unfair. If he wishes to do that, why the devil is he not in the House to hear some of our replies?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I had no intention of getting up and speaking again in this House tonight, but when a minister makes a statement like the one he made it has to be replied to so that people can see the facts as they are, and so they will realize it is not a filibuster by the opposition but that it is opposition members who are genuinely trying to get answers from a government and from a minister who does not really care.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, the only pleasant part of this debate is seeing you in the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: The parliamentary secretary to the minister in charge of the wheat board brought attention to a fact we have been focusing on throughout the extended period of the debate on this bill, and that is the cost of administration. He related that to crop insurance costs in the separate provinces, and I would venture to say that if he stays in this House of Commons long enough he will see the day when he will eat the words which he used this afternoon- that this program will only cost $11 or $12 per farm.
Grain Stabilization
I remember the debate we had in this House when a former minister of finance started the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. At that time it was stated that it would cost approximately $10 million. I think it is now up to the $40 million or $50 million bracket. So it goes with government bureaucracy, and I think those costs can be related to the cost of the administration of this bill. Then certainly there will be a closing of the gap between the costs of these two programs. I suggest that this $11 or $12 cost per farm will increase drastically over the next two to five years.
In discussing this with crop insurance representatives I find that they are ready and willing to undertake the administration of this program. If we are interested in trying to save the government money, and as a result the taxpayers of Canada, then it seems logical that this program definitely should be operated by the crop insurance commissions because they have their head offices in the three prairie provinces. In addition, in each of these provinces there are district offices established. I do not know just how many district offices there are in the province of Saskatchewan, but I know that in the province of Alberta there are 52 district offices. It seems to me that whatever governmental proceedings have to take place could take place and be controlled out of those offices.
Further, in view of the fact that in a great many cases elevator agents collect for the crop insurance program, so could these same government agencies collect for the stabilization bill, which has to be done. However, there is one significant difference-the crop insurance commissions pay those elevator agents for collecting those fees, but there is no provision in this bill for any payment whatsoever to the elevator agents.
I think that it will not be too far into the future when elevator agents will ask to be reimbursed for this extra work, and rightly so. I think they should be. There is a certain amount of responsibility associated with the collection of this money, especially when public funds are being dealt with. If the government really wants to be fair and wants to operate the plan the way the majority of the producers would like to have it operated, then I am satisfied this is the way this program should be administered, instead of setting up another head office. This would do away with much confusion, and it would help a great deal in communication between the two bodies. As the crop insurance inspectors go out into the country they could do the same work as the inspectors under the grain stabilization plan. There will be a duplication of effort and cost, and for what purpose? It is just so one man, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, can control his empire in western Canada. I do not find that acceptable. I have not from the start, and I wish we could have had some support from the other side of the House in breaking this down.
Let us act in a sensible manner in order that this program can be put in place so that it will do justice to the producers of western Canada and, as a result, to every taxpayer in Canada. After all, taxpayers do have a part in this. They contribute a portion to this program.
I feel that the minister has been unfair. He is not acting wisely. Before this bill becomes law I hope he will give it a second thought, and give the crop insurance commissions

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
the authority to administer the bill. Then certainly I for one would be much happier than I am at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill tonight because of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) this afternoon. I heard my colleagues and members of the official opposition speak of their surprise at the unfairness of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in the remarks he made this afternoon. Madam Speaker, I am surprised that anybody is surprised about that. He has been making these same kinds of remarks on the same subject for the past four or five years. It is his pet position.
I appreciated the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) this afternoon. I consider him to be a very competent young member-misguided, but competent. For a long time I thought that the Minister of Transport wrote his speeches but I have come to the conclusion that it probably works the other way. And I would advise the Minister of Transport to use the speeches that somebody else prepares for him because he does not add to his stature at all by the remarks he made this afternoon.
This is an important piece of legislation, Madam Speaker. It is important for us to look at the question of stabilizing the price of grain, and for the minister to criticize members who feel there should be a different way of providing that stabilization seems to me to be arrogant-a Prussian like attitude. It is not in keeping with the objects of a minister who avows that his interest is in providing a reasonable living for the farmers.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Assiniboia; incidentally I think he should be the minister in charge of the wheat board if it is to be separated from the Department of Agriculture. This is probably one occasion when I would support the idea of a second minister in a department. Agricultural stabilization certainly does not belong with Transport; it should come under the Department of Agriculture. There would be some merit in having the hon. member for Assiniboia handle this particular legislation. I say that because his remarks showed his knowledge of the vast detail in this bill, and his understanding that there probably can be a difference of opinion as to how the legislation will apply, and why there is a philosophical difference amongst members on how stabilization should be operated.
In moving the amendment today to refer this bill back to committee for further study my colleagues are talking about two separate things. One is a disagreement that we have in relation to the cost of production figures which are allowed under the bill. They do not allow a number of inputs that are in the agricultural stabilization bill which was introduced last year by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). They do not allow interest or premiums paid out through the grain stabilization bill, nor do they allow for the normal depreciation that is considered as part of the normal cost of production.
Those members on the government side who are on the agricultural committee would be well advised to remember

the discussion we had last year on marketing legislation covering various foods and the allowances made for input costs of eggs as opposed to milk. In each case a different formula was being used, and in fact the formula is different from one province to another in many cases.
What we are suggesting is that the formula is spelled out in such detail that it would take a mathematician to understand it. I should like to know where the hon. member for Assiniboia got these three people who were going out to advise the farmers who phoned in with questions how much they would be allowed under certain circumstances after they knew their net proceeds of the previous year. I do not think you would get that kind of answer from the income tax people who were involved in the cost factors that go into the net return versus the gross return and the allowable costs in those returns. I think it would be very difficult to take the figures and tables in this bill and relate them to specific cases.
If we agreed with the first proposition that everything is spelled out and that they are correct, the hon. member for Assiniboia would still have difficulty applying that argument to the second proposition we referred back to the committee. That proposition is that the individual decision will be made in terms of clauses 9, 10 and 11 which take the western area and put it into one area, and which say that under certain circumstances everybody in that area is going to get a payment.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) made the point that if this applied in any other universal program where it involved those who were in need and those who were not, there would be considerable complaint from those with less left wing tendencies than from some of us because of the unfairness of the program. It was pointed out that if you had a year in which the criteria were met and the pay-out was made on a broad basis covering a large number of areas-and it is a fact that areas in western Canada have not consistently produced the same ratio of crops as has another area, either in grades or quantities-you would find some people who had a bumper crop being paid out according to their contribution in the same manner as those who had very bad crops for several years. Even if the latter were in a majority and had made little contribution to the program, their benefits coming out of it would be small.
I know that is difficult to understand, Madam Speaker, and I know the farmers are having difficulty understanding it because nobody could be that stupid-except the Minister of Transport. No one else could be that stupid. They would know, because they would talk to the farmers, that crops failures through weather, pestilence, loss of markets or any other consideration that a farmer faces, do not happen uniformly over the three prairie provinces. They do not happen uniformly in one prairie province. I do not come from the prairie provinces but I dare say in each there are at least five zones with totally different weather conditions, different growth, different production abilities, and a number of other factors about which I know nothing.
I know that different factors must be considered, that farmers can get more for Durum wheat than for some other kinds, and that people in the Palliser triangle grow No. 1
January 26, 1976

Northern which is as good as or even better than any wheat grown on the prairies. I know this, and I do not come from the prairies; but the Minister of Transport does not know it, obviously, since he has not provided for this legislation to be applied in different zones.
We are not only asking for the legislation to be applied in zones; we want it applied on an individual basis. We are concerned about the farmers. As for the minister, he has been in his ivory law tower teaching law to people in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan they must have produced some lousy lawyers. If he is as bad at law as he is at agriculture, he must be a really bad lawyer. I feel sorry for the people he taught at university.
Every western member who is the least bit honest will admit that there have been crop disasters, but the crop failure has often affected people in one half of a township and not in the other half. Sometimes in one half of a township hail will totally destroy a crop, but the crop in the other part of the township will be unaffected. That is how the good Lord works. He does not always hail out an entire township. But the Minister of Transport thinks that if there is hail in western Canada, it will hail all across the three prairie provinces and that there will be a total disaster in the entire area. He does not realize that it could hail in one half of a township, or in Assiniboia, and not hail at all in an adjacent riding-perhaps because the people of Assiniboia voted differently in the past. But political considerations do not influence the Lord overmuch. When there is a natural disaster, there is no easy way to decide boundaries.
In the committee we suggested boundaries on an individual basis. The minister said no. We suggested township boundaries. The minister said no. Then we suggested that there should be zones within the provinces. Again he said no. In the end we suggested boundaries involving at least the five areas under Wheat Board jurisdiction, which will include the three prairie provinces, part of British Columbia, and part of Ontario, which should be given consideration. But the minister said no, the area of jurisdiction had to be all prairie provinces as one unit.
I suggest that the hon. member for Assiniboia must have spent an awfully long time in school, or somewhere else, because if he had talked to farmers instead of lecturing them he would have discovered that there is a need to break down jurisdictional areas into small parcels if you are to make reasonable and economical payments. As the bill now stands, if the entire crop of the Palliser area is destroyed, say, or there is no market for No. 1 Northern and the whole area suffers a net loss, the result could be large payments to people who had a large income and small payments to people who made a small income.
We have been considering stabilization for some time. Ever since coming here the minister has tried to sell the idea of stabilization, but he knows little about it. His officials know little about it, too. When the committee late last year discussed the agricultural stabilization legislation, it suggested a number of changes. Actually I proposed one motion. We suggested that grains now coming under Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction should be included as named commodities under the agricultural stabilization bill. We could treat such grains in the same way as we are to treat eight or nine, I think, other commodities. Doing it
Grain Stabilization
this way would mean that we should consider the production of each individual farmer; individual loss of income would be readily discernible, on the basis of which we could make a payment with the help of a subsidy from the federal government.
Obviously the minister relies on the long-term cycles affecting the production of cereal grains. In the near future we can expect reasonably good crops. Really, we need only worry about price on the international and domestic markets, so that the minister is not anticipating a pay-out in the immediate future. Actually if this program had been in force for some time, the last sizable pay-out would have taken place in 1962. True, grain prices were depressed that year, but production costs were not as high as at present. This program could be in existence for some time before conditions arise leading to a pay-out.
More than any other minister, the Minister of Transport has built up his own civil service. It is not our civil service, Mr. Speaker; it is his. He reminds me of Jimmy Gardiner, when Jimmy Gardiner was still a household word. Mr. Gardiner built up an empire including inspectors of diseased sheep and inspectors of just about everything else. I mention the sheep, because he was caught on that matter. The people working for him did not work for the government. They were order in council appointees.
How many civil servants will administer this program? The hon. member for Assiniboia suggested that it will be a few. The program will not involve large administrative costs. That may be so, because the Minister of Transport already has working for him a whole lot of order in council appointees. I am sure he will use the people of the grains group, of the transport study group, of the grains council, and PFAA appointees. All these are the minister's Liberal appointees, part of his machine.
We do not expect it will change anything. However, I disagree with the hon. member for Assiniboia who said it will not cost the farmers or the people of Canada. Jimmy Gardiner's machine cost the farmers a great deal. It could not always be calculated. Even though you could not add it all up, it cost a lot. There is no question about that. It would be interesting to hear from some of the old farmers how much it cost them.
These new appointments, even though they are supposed to work for no pay, will cost the farmers a lot. They are so-called dollar a year men. I read Peter Newman's book about a dollar a year man. I would like to go to the right fishing club. I would not mind working for a dollar a year because the expense accounts are so good. Even though the salaries of these men are very low, the expenses are high.
If the government continues to pass this kind of stupid legislation, there will not be any Liberal members from Saskatchewan.
I was interested in hearing the Minister of Transport talk about his new friends in Unifarm. That is a right wing organization. There is no doubt about that. However, I am not sure they are right enough for the Minister of Transport. I am sure there will be a lot of progressives in that organization who will not be influenced.

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
I am aware that the minister spoke to that organization. He was the guest speaker. They probably were polite. Farm people usually are. If you appear to be totally out of the ball park, they just smile and say, poor boy. They do not push it any farther. However, I am sure they did not buy.
This raises another interesting point. We filibustered on the original grain stabilization bill long enough for the courts to get into the act and stop the minister from cheating. That filibuster saved the farmers many millions of dollars. I think an accurate guess would be $400 million to $500 million was saved by killing the original bill. Right away that year we saved them over $100 million. What the people thought about that stabilization bill was certainly reflected in the election at that time. Some farmers were so mad that they took the government to court. I believe the matter was settled out of court. It was certainly dropped.
The government was cheating by not making the $15 million payment the law said it had to make. The minister wanted to get that through right away. He introduced retroactive legislation to cover the illegality. We held it up by filibustering. We make no apology. We filibustered until the court was able to make a decision. When the minister knew what the court's decision was going to be, the bill was withdrawn and there was no more talk about it.
I am sure that almost everyone in this House supports income stabilization. However, it must be an honest stabilization. We want it to be related to the costs of production. I agree that it will involve quotas and the government having to sell what is produced. It will involve producing as much as possible on the acreage that is allowed. The farmer will agree to do that in the most efficient manner at the lowest cost. He has already agreed to it with regard to a number of other commodities under the stabilization act.
This is a new field. One type of agriculture is being separated from the other areas of agriculture and is being placed under the Department of Transport. The former Minister of Transport should not be offended because this is really not part of the transport field. It is just that the minister responsible for the wheat board now happens to be Minister of Transport.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I wish Marchand had the wheat board.


William Arnold Peters: We would rather that anybody else had it instead of having the wheat board follow one minister around. In many ways it is fortunate that there are only three Liberals elected in that province. As I said before, I would rather the wheat board were handled by an associated minister than traipsing around on somebody's caboose where it is being bumped around in a way that it does not deserve.
We are all interested in stabilizing agriculture, but it must be done fairly. It must be the kind of program the individual farmer can afford. It should be related to a number of other programs that we now have, one of which is the agricultural products stabilization board. It has a set of criteria that has worked satisfactorily for the past 20 years. It has its ups and downs but it works relatively well. There are many commodities that producers would like under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I believe it could apply to grains produced in the prairie provinces as it now applies to wheat produced in Ontario.

There is nothing wrong with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) having some responsibility for wheat. However, I do not understand why he is not supposed to have anything to do with western wheat.
Production costs differ in various parts of the prairies. Input costs, wheather conditions, soil conditions and production costs per acre differ: There should be an allowance for those differences. That is being taken into consideration in the farm crop insurance programs in which the provinces are involved.
Part of this program is a bastardization of the agricultural products marketing legislation and the crop insurance program. It is neither fish nor fowl in terms of insurance or marketing legislation. Before the\ farmers start making large demands on this program we must be sure that it is the type of program they can live with and is one that will bring some form of income stabilization to western Canada over a long period of time. Any other type of program is only for the political ego of the minister who introduced it.
The minister has not particularly tried to sell this program. There are very few farmers in favour of it and very few opposed to it. They are not opposed for a very simple reason. Initially the minister allowed them to check out of the program. If they go back into the program they can check out for the second time, but not get into it on any additional occasion. They can really check out of the program twice. For this reason no one is particularly opposed to it. However, we are going to spend money on it. I do not care how much money we shall spend on administration. I do not care how much money the minister will require to provide staff in the various agencies under his control to administer this scheme.
Whatever the costs of administration may be, the country as a whole has an interest in this program. Even if no farmers decide to participate there will still be the cost of administration, and I think hon. members would be very foolish to pass a piece of legislation which farmers do not desire to be passed. I have received no letters in the past two years either in support of this program or against it. Hon. members may suggest that I get no letters on the subject because I do not come from Western Canada. May I say, though that I got hundreds of letters about the previous piece of legislation, Bill C-171, in opposition to that particular measure.
It is important that legislation should be either opposed or supported by those it will affect, and there is no evidence of any support for or opposition to this legislation. Thus it seems to me we have failed to provide legislation which will achieve any reasonable result in terms of ensuring a guaranteed income for western farmers.
Western farmers are not particularly interested in insuring against disaster this year. They are not interested because they have already had a good crop. They have had a series of good crops. They have been able to buy new machines, including heavy machinery which enables them to cut down labour costs. They will be paying for those machines for the next eight or ten years, and so long as they receive a reasonable price for their grain and can grow a reasonable grade they will not be complaining very much.
January 26, 1976

I believe the minister now responsible for the wheat board had a personal interest in this legislation which is not in keeping with the opinion expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Assiniboia who believes sincerely though incorrectly, that this type of legislation is good for the farmers in his area. I suggest that if it is good for the farmers in his area where they are farming light land and grow very good crops in good years, though in other years they may well encounter difficulties, they might find that the same program will not apply in northern Saskatchewan. If he knows this he should consider referring the bill back to the committee to give members a chance to consider regionalization for a second time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, while we are dealing tonight with western grain, more particularly with western wheat, we are dealing with an export commodity, a commodity which is traded internationally on a global basis.
I believe there is something happening out there in the world of which the government is not aware. For the first time in the history of the grain trade all the components are in the system on a world-wide basis. China and Russia are now regular purchasers. Every country has apparently made a decision not to allow its people to starve. So, for the first time, all the components are in the system on a world-wide basis.
Surely before we get into a complicated scheme such as this which is before us tonight, we should have answers to some simple questions. For instance, I have tried to find out from the government how much it costs to produce a bushel of wheat and I cannot get an answer. The government has no figures showing how one deals with the cost of land. I heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) talk about the great record of achievement of the present minister in charge of the wheat board. Look at the government's own figures. According to the Wheat Review we find that the peak export year for Canadian wheat and wheat flour was 1962-63 when the figure was 594 million bushels. In 1972-73, ten years later, we exported 575 million bushels. This year, up until January 14, exports of wheat and Durum combined amounted to 216.1 million bushels. If everything goes well for the balance of the crop year exports of wheat and wheat flour may reach 450 million bushels, which is a far cry from the almost 600 million bushels we exported back in 1962-63.
What about our competitors? What about our great neighbour to the south? Exports of wheat and feed grain from the United States are constantly rising while Canadian exports are declining. Here are some figures. In 1963-64, a good year for Canada, we exported 15 million metric tons. In 1972-73 we exported 15.6 million metric tons. In 1974-75 the figure was 11.2 million metric tons and the projection for next year is 13 million metric tons. Compare these figures with those of our chief competitor, the United States-23 million metric tons in 1963-64, 31.8 million in 72-73, and 28 million in 1974-75. The projection for next year is 36.5 million metric tons.
What is the world import situation? In the year 1963-64, total imports amounted to 57.4 million metric tons. For the present year they are estimated to be 75.8 million metric
Grain Stabilization
tons. Trade in wheat and wheat flour is continuously increasing, yet our exports are likely to be far below the figure of 1963-64.
There is no question that if this bill passes Canada will be subsidizing wheat production in Western Canada. The hon. member for Assiniboia, appearing before the Senate Committee on Agriculture on December 16, had this to say:


Ralph Goodale: For last year, just to put a figure on it, had the plan been in place-and this involves some presumptions about participation, crop volumes, prices and this sort of thing-the federal payment into the stabilization fund would have been something in the order of $90 million.
It is obvious to me that if Canada continues to follow the route of stabilization subsidy programs it will lead to an ever-increasing border limitation problem with the United States and the European Economic Community. What we need are long term contracts such as our competitors are entering into with Poland, Russia, and Japan-three and five year contracts. Maybe we should be devoting more attention to setting up a national food bank in this country. I suggest we should spend a little more on market promotion.
It bothers me that this year Canada is going to end up with about a $5 billion trade deficit. Grain exports from this country alone bring in some $3 billion of foreign exchange, and the government wants to tamper with this. I close by saying that with this bill I think we are walking down an unknown road.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks in support of the main motion to give the bill third reading and at the same time to oppose the amendment for a six months' hoist.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, it is not that. Read the amendment.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Well, referral back to committee is the same difference, be it four months or six months.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It would only take one day to do it.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: It is another delay and obstruction move on the part of my hon. friends opposite. I can only conclude that my hon. friends opposite in the NDP have not been reading their mail that well lately. They cannot use the mail strike as an excuse this time. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool board of directors had a meeting just prior to the House adjourning for Christmas and urged that all of us collectively as MPs get on with the job of passing this legislation and putting it into place by January 1, 1976.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We will buy that.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Again earlier this month the Manitoba Farm Bureau-I am not talking of the Palliser wheat group mentioned by some hon. members opposite but the Western Agricultural Conference and the groups that they represent, a very broad representative group of grain producers-sent a telegram to the government, the minister, and to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and I suspect hon. members of the NDP as well,

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization
urging members of parliament to get busy and pass this legislation.
I do not mind at all giving my hon. friends opposite all the time they require to debate this legislation. Over the years I have been listening to the same old arguments being put forward by my hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre, the very same arguments he used when he was an organizer in the province of Saskatchewan.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It seems they were successful anyway.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I would have expected from him more up-to-date arguments, such as those just put forward by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton). His suggestions were at least new and looked to the future. In moving this amendment this evening I think members of the NDP really wanted another chance to villify the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. That has really been the gist of their speeches so far. They have put forward no reason for deferring the legislation by referring it back to committee. They continue to heap abuse upon the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not blame the NDP for finding some excuse for getting up and talking about farm policy because they really do not have a farm policy other than to villify and to criticize the minister. That has been their policy for some time, and again they are making the same old speeches.
It has been interesting to listen to some of the arguments that have been put forward. Some good arguments have been made and they have not all been a waste of time. Some good valid objections have been put forward as well as some very invalid objections. In general we have had a long, protracted debate since the bill was brought in, but the debate has been productive.
This bill, or a version of it, has been before the House and western farmers for almost five years, yet we still hear members opposite saying that perhaps we would move more slowly, that perhaps we should reconsider it. But again, no real alternative as to whom else we should consult and where else we should inquire has been put forward.
In all the time we have debated the bill and this whole concept of stabilization it took the official opposition, the Conservative party opposite, until December 11, 1975, before it came forward with any sort of concrete counter proposal to this concept of grain stabilization. On that date a definite suggestion was put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), supported by other speakers from that party.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, some real concerns have been raised and I think resolved in this debate. I think we have improved the legislation. The hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) said he had not had any mail about this subject for the last two years. Although it is good for Canada that current grain prices are high and markets are good, perhaps part of the difficulty felt by all members of the House in trying to have a comprehensive debate on this issue is that the farmers do not really want to think about the day when grain markets and prices are not as good as they are today. But in the meantime I think they do want this House of Commons to proceed with putting in place some kind of fund or program to cushion the day-if and

when it comes; we all hope it will not even though the course of history indicates it is likely to-when things are not so rosy.
The opposition did not like this particular plan. It seems to me that all we heard in the early stages of this debate was that we need a plan but not this one. We talked to farm groups and all were careful to support the principle of stabilization without specifically criticizing what was wrong with this plan, and more particularly without any firm proposal of their own being made until just before Christmas when, after some four or five years, the Conservative party put forward a kind of individual plan. If I had a criticism to make of it, their plan is a great deal more complicated than the one in this bill, and one criticism of this bill has been that its terms are too complicated and detailed.
The NDP-and I give them credit for this-did put forward an alternative, albeit a fairly simple one and a very expensive one. They suggested a fully guaranteed income for all farmers, whether they be grain farmers or some other kind of farmer, whether the farmers needed or deserved it, whether they were good producers, tried hard or made good judgments, or otherwise.
The fact of the matter is that if they had talked to producers in the prairie region, certainly to the grain growers, they would have discovered that even the supporters of the NDP do not want this kind of plan. They may be socialists in other respects and for other reasons, but they do not want the kind of plan that will bonus everyone regardless of whether they do a good job or a poor job of farming. Such a proposal for solving the problems of the grain farmer would not get support.
I do not suggest that the plan embodied in Bill C-41 is perfect. I suspect we will be considering amendments to it once the plan is in operation. But we do need the plan in place. I suggest that opposition delays in the past year have cost the western grain producers millions of dollars because the fund was not in place and building itself up toward the day when that particular plan was in operation.


William Arnold Peters: Your own minister delayed the bill, and you know it.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I want to deal with some of the points that have been put forward in this debate. Who wants it? I think we have settled that particular question. All political parties and farm groups are almost unanimous that we do need an income plan of this kind. Although people have expressed concern and criticized this particular bill and some of its complexities, at least they are all there, written into the legislation. It is all there written in, and is not subject to the vagaries of orders in council or changes in that respect.
The program does not provide for pay-outs to the larger grain producers. Some implication was expressed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) about the 2 per cent for everybody which would be taken out, but the larger producers would not get larger payments because there is that limit to 2 per cent of sales up to a value of $25,000. It may be, of course, that the limit should
January 26, 1976

be raised, but it certainly will not let someone with $100,000 in sales draw out large payments.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is a minor detail.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I do not think it is a minor detail, but it is rather ridiculous to compare this to the unemployment insurance program, medicare, or anything else of that kind.
I have one criticism of the legislation in that it excludes the feed grain producer who chooses to feed his grain to his own livestock. If a barley producer markets his grain to another feed lot, sells it to a feed mill or to the Canadian Wheat Board for export or shipment to eastern Canada and hauls it to the elevator for that reason, he can contribute to the plan and be a part of it, and thereby draw benefits. On the other hand, if that feed grain producer feeds his own livestock he is not able to participate. It seems to me this is an omission in this legislation.
The theory is, of course, that such a producer will be able to benefit from livestock stabilization programs. That might be the fact, but I do not see that we should deny him the right to be a participant in this particular program, because he is a grain producer just the same as the other chap who grows barley and sells it to the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am satisfied that before very long we will again have to bring in some amendments to this legislation, particularly after it gets into operation and we hear from the producers themselves. I think it was the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) who spoke earlier in the debate about the delays in getting this bill into place. It is not to the credit of members opposite that this legislation is going forward at all. They have stalled and played games for many months in spite of the recitations of dates and so on that we have heard from members here tonight.
Nothing has been said about the many amendments and changes we were able to implement in response to some criticisms opposite and some suggestions both in the committee and at the report stage here in the House.
One other point that keeps coming back into the debate from hon. members of the NDP and the Conservative opposition relates to the number of people who will be employed to handle this legislation. That is a nonsense argument and is not borne out by the facts. Indeed time will demonstrate that this is one of the more phoney arguments they have put forward.
Another suggestion I have heard put forward by members opposite is that this program will destroy the crop insurance program, or somehow jeopardize crop insurance.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I certainly can check back through the speeches, as I am sure the hon. member could, to find out who made that suggestion. In no way will this program jeopardize the crop insurance program. This program is complementary to the crop insurance program.
Any comparisons made between this program in Bill C-41 and the PFAA are not valid either, because this program will hopefully do a better and better job than the PFAA. This program is not in any way comparable to PFAA.
Grain Stabilization
This brings me to the one point raised by hon. members opposite about what we do about the differences in regions. That is a good and valid question. The proposal put forward by the Conservatives would really mean that we are going to ask the government to set up individual retirement plans or bank accounts for individual producers. I find that surprising coming from the Conservative party. Surely there are enough provisions in other programs and in income tax provisions for the farmers to go ahead and make their own plans in that regard. Really this proposal put forward by the Conservative party as a counter proposal to this legislation would see the government setting up individual funds for each of these grain producers. If the producer did not use the fund during his life time he could then sort of retire on it.
On the one hand hon. members in the opposition do not want the government to spend more money, but on the other hand they say we should set up these little retirement funds. I do not think this plan will stand up in any way. Their proposal has no way of triggering payments in order to do the job intended to be done by Bill C-41, that is, stabilizing over-all grain income whenever that income is low.
This is one more of a number of proposals and policies which have been implemented by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I could talk about setting up the grains group. I do not know why members opposite are particularly critical about that, because this certainly set up people in several departments to look into and highlight the grain industry, with the many good results that have come from that. I could also refer to the good job in sales that is being done by the Wheat Board. The national feed grains policy has provided a major improvement in the disorderly marketing situation we had before.
I would agree that no such scheme as we are debating here tonight in Bill C-41 is going to replace good marketing or good marketing practices. Nor is it going to replace good farm practices or good farm management practices. In this respect I certainly agree with earlier remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. The best kind of plan is one that involves a minimum of government intervention and government interference, and leaves the operations of the farmers to their own choices. I think this plan does that and I urge all hon. members to support it, and to reject the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

January 26, 1976
Grain Stabilization


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion and I think we have found general agreement to defer the vote on this matter to the first item of business under government orders tomorrow.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: There certainly has been an agreement to defer the vote, Mr. Speaker, but my understanding of the agreement was that it would be taken tomorrow in the evening. I think there was a general agreement that the vote could be taken at eight o'clock tomorrow evening if we get that far.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has stated the agreement as I understood it, namely, that if the vote were called this evening it would not be taken now but deferred until tomorrow evening, not tomorrow afternoon.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is not as it was communicated to me here by my colleague, but if that is to be the agreement of the House it is acceptable to me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think it would be easier is we had agreement in respect of time. Would eight o'clock be the time selected by hon. members?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I understood very clearly from my colleagues that it was to be tomorrow afternoon and I would hesitate to agree otherwise. Perhaps we had better go ahead in the circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since there seems to have been some breakdown in the communications, as I never heard anything other than that it would be tomorrow evening, could we not defer the vote until tomorrow evening but let the exact time tomorrow evening be decided by consultation tomorrow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not the advice I have. Tomorrow afternoon was certainly the intent on this side and I would not feel free to depart from that.


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope hon. members would come to some agreement. Once we have proceeded to put the question to arrive at a decision, then we cannot see the clock.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some legitimate difficulty on the other side of the House with regard to a vote at any other time tomorrow except the time mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). I think it would be agreeable to

all of us if the vote were deferred until the first item of government business on Wednesday. I understand that is agreeable to my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is agreeable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion seems to be that the deferred division on Bill C-41 be postponed until the calling of the first order of government business on Wednesday. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being agreed, it is so ordered that the said vote will be taken and members called in at that time at the calling of the first order of government business on Wednesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask if the acting House leader would like to confirm the business for the House tomorrow afternoon. I believe it will be Bill C-71.


Mr. Blais:: I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-71 is to be the first order of business tomorrow afternoon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to raise this evening, and I want to thank the hon. members for giving me some assistance in raising it as the first item, has to do with the continuing concern we in Prince Edward Island and I believe the people in Newfoundland have about the problems with regard to the main transportation link with the mainland, the ferry system.
As hon. members will recall, the last time there was a disruption in the ferry service because of the situation on the railroad in August, 1973, some members on all sides sought assurance from the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport that the absolutely catastrophic tie-up of the ferry systems of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland would be dealt with in the time of peace, so-called, between the resolution of that strike and the entering into of new collective bargaining arrangements two years or more hence. At that time I received an undertaking which appears on the record of Hansard at pages 6142 and 6143 of August, 1973. At that time the minister said:
January 26, 1976

... I can answer the hon. member right now by saying yes, we could correct that situation assuredly so that it would never happen again.
He went on to suggest that the solution should be found elsewhere than in compulsory arbitration. Certainly that is a solution with which I would agree, and I am sure many hon. members on all sides would.
Since that time I have carried on a rather lengthy correspondence with provincial and federal ministers, but particularly with the federal minister of transport. My colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), on December 3 as reported at page 9685 of Hansard, asked the following written question:
Has any agreement been reached or any arrangement made whereby continuous ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the Mainland can be guaranteed, even when labour contracts are being negotiated?
I was somewhat shocked at the answer of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), which was as follows:
No agreement has been reached nor has any arrangement been made whereby continuous ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the Mainland can be guaranteed at all times, especially during the ice season and during labour disputes.
Obviously with respect to weather conditions or ice certainly I am not one who believes that the Minister of Transport, regardless of what his powers might be, has reached the area of control of ice conditions or has passed beyond human bounds into the supernatural. We know only too well that these are conditions which so far no technology or political know how has overcome. However, with respect to the question of labour disputes, either present or future, I was mightily disturbed to find that the minister had neither arrived at any kind of solution or agreement with the key parties involved, nor did he seem to be aware of the fact that there has been considerable correspondence with his predecessor, or that in fact his predecessor had established a special committee and that the committee, which is known as the Marine East coordinating committee, had held a series of meetings.
Unfortunately these meetings were without a great deal of success, and this is the reason for my pursuing the matter tonight. As a matter of fact, on December 8 as reported at page 9795 of Hansard I indicated in a supplementary to the Minister of Transport that there was the Marine East co-ordinating committee which had been announced by his predecessor, now the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), a year ago July, and that the committee was to meet in the months of January, May and September and effect continuing communication on potential labour disputes which might result in the termination of a service which vitally affects the economic interests of Prince Edward Island. I asked specifically whether that committee was still operating and when it might be making a report. The Minister of Transport indicated on December 8 that he had not had a report but that he would look into it. Unfortunately to date the minister has not reported either to this House or to me, and I am still in the dark, as are the people of Prince Edward Island.
This comes against the background of a situation where we know we are into the negotiation of new contracts. I understand the negotiations have not produced any positive results. In light of what has been a continuing series
Adjournment Debate
of labour problems, one cannot be as optimistic as one might otherwise hope to be. When we project the possibility of a crisis situation sometime in the next few months, perhaps during a critical period affecting the economic interests of at least one or two provinces of this country, it is critical that now, well in advance of the time when we reach a crisis situation, the ministries responsible-particularly the Ministry of Transport which has a prime responsibility-should have worked out some kind of solution.
Shortly after the situation in August, 1973, I produced one proposal. I will not take the time of the House to go into detail on that proposal, but it was one possible alternative, a double penalty alternative which in effect would have provided a penalty against both union and management, but would not have penalised the public interest and the people of Prince Edward Island.
I direct the attention of the parliamentary secretary to that proposal. I have had no definitive reply from his department or from officials in the Department of Labour. I have had some kind of preliminary reaction from some unions about the proposal, but that is the extent to which there has been any serious examination of that as an alternative. There have been other suggestions. There has been the suggestion of establishing a Crown corporation, which I really do not think would get us much beyond the present dilemma.
Of course it is known to members of the House that the government of Prince Edward Island, realizing the seriousness of the situation, has had in the courts since late 1973 a legal action against the Government of Canada with respect to its own responsibility to maintain continuous transportation to and from Prince Edward Island, even during times of labour disputes.
I think it is high time, therefore, that the minister or his parliamentary secretary indicated to the House exactly what kind of work is being done, and when we can be assured that we are not going to face, for the third time in a decade, the kind of damaging situation that will affect the income, the prospects, and the operation of the social and economic fabric of Prince Edward Island. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary could give us some of that assurance this evening.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to my hon. friend again this evening. I have had that opportunity on other occasions at this point in the proceedings, and I am always very interested in the arguments he presents and impressed by the way he puts them to the government and the House.
I can assure the hon. member, as other hon. members on this side of the House have done on other occasions, that the government is very concerned with the matter of the substantial losses incurred by people who are innocent bystanders to labour-management disputes and the situations which arise in the course of industrial relations that deprive innocent people of some kind of service which causes them inconvenience at the least and probably much more than that.

January 26, 1976
Adjournment Debate
I should like to help my hon. friend by providing some background and updating on the work of the Marine East co-ordinating committee.
When the hon. member first asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to state what was being done to ensure continuous ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland with regard to disruptions caused by winter ice conditions and labour disputes, I am afraid the wording may have become a bit confused. I am glad that has been straightened out now and that we are not particularly talking about "acts of God" in the insurance sense of the phrase, but really about losses or disruption caused by labour disputes.
With regard to this particular matter of disruptions due to industrial disputes, the original reply by the minister recognized the fact that ferry service employees enjoyed the right to strike and the government would not want to interfere with that right if such action could be avoided.
The hon. member has drawn attention to the existence of the Marine East co-ordinating committee and appears to be under the impression that this group was set up to eliminate strikes in the ferry service. We only wish-and I speak in a general sense-that that could be true in an easy fashion. The committee in question was set up in an effort to reduce the likelihood of strikes developing, and represents an earnest attempt of management and labour to maintain a relationship which would permit them to identify problem areas in advance and nip potential disputes in the bud.
The existence of this committee, with sub-committees in the various ships and terminals, has provided a useful sounding board and has enabled management and labour to defuse several potentially explosive situations. Nevertheless, despite the success of the co-ordinating committee so far in the maintenance of good management labour relations, it must be recognized that this has not eliminated the possibility of strikes in the ferry services, and the government would be reluctant to interfere with that particular right.


SOCIAL SECURITY-FAMILY ALLOWANCE-REASON FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW PAYMENT METHOD ADOPTED IN FRANCE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, one can read at page 10193 of Hansard for December 19, the Friday before the Christmas recess, that I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) if he had considered the system of family allowance payments in France where only those persons below a certain income level are eligible to receive payments, and for what reason would such a system not be introduced in Canada? The minister gave me a short reply referring to the attitude of the opposition.
We are presently, Mr. Speaker, spending some $2 billion a year on family allowances, and 60 per cent of that amount goes to families with incomes over $12,000.
Well over three million families in Canada receive family allowances, including nearly 900,000 families in the province of Quebec. About 40 per cent have only one child, but the figures go all the way up to some 2,000 families which have ten or more children.
[Mr. Goodale.)
A couple with two children earning a taxable income of $10,000 pay over $2,000 in federal taxes. For similar families with taxable incomes of $20,000 and $30,000, the figures are approximately $5,000 and $9,000 respectively. Those three families receive an after tax benefit on their family allowances of approximately $360, $330, and $300 respectively.
Family allowance payments are equivalent to about a quarter of total personal income tax; so that if, for example, payments were restricted to only half the number of families which presently receive them, that is, those with lower incomes, personal taxes could be reduced by about 12 per cent across the board or by such other ways as would give greater relief to those in lower tax brackets.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare tells us that 20 per cent of families receive less than 6 per cent of family income, whereas the highest one-fifth receive about 40 per cent of family income. With these figures in mind we should be very reluctant to remove the indexing of family allowances. Proportionately, the poor are still getting poorer while the rich are getting richer.
We all like to see universal payments. However, in the case of old age pensions the supplement is based on income. It is therefore not illogical to suggest that family allowance payments should be based on need. This is the way it works in France.
The proposals of the minister concerning income security and adequate minimum incomes are based on need. Thus, while one can argue administrative ease in universal payments, there are many examples where the desirable principle of universality is laid aside for economic necessity.
It is a retrograde step in the over-all program of income redistribution to remove the indexing of family allowances. Why not take this opportunity to revise the entire scheme, maintaining indexing, eliminating payments to those who do not need them and, at the same time, either make compensatory tax reductions or reduce the budgetary deficit?
Answering my question on December 19, the minister referred to the attitude of the opposition. Today, with majority government, unanimity is not essential. The present thinking of the government, which is looking for spending cuts, should be redirected toward the program of family allowances. I should like the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or his representative in the House tonight, the parliamentary secretary, to expand on the short answer given to me on December 19.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member, my colleague, for raising this question in the House on this occasion. We are dealing with one of the costliest programs of the government. The family allowance program, in which Canadian taxpayers are involved in the redistribution of about $2 billion, absorbs nearly 6 per cent of the total federal budget. So it is not unreasonable that questions from my side of the House, or the opposition side, should be raised about the value of this program and its benefits.
Let me say at the outset that the government is firmly Committed to the program as presently constituted. Between 1968 and 1972, years when I was first a member of
January 26, 1976

parliament, the government put forward a proposal for public consideration which would have involved, in effect, putting a ceiling on family allowances so that families with more than $15,000 annual income would not receive payments. I remind hon. members that the proposal was not well received in the country when it was discussed in an active and lively public debate. People with family incomes of $15,000 were quick to point out that they were not well-to-do, and that for them the family allowance was a considerable benefit.
Remember, the family allowance concept recognizes the fact of dependency, the fact that having children involves extra expense. It recognizes the fact that those expenses usually come at a time in life when a family is newly formed. In most cases the couple has been recently married and must meet considerable expenses in setting up the household and launching on life together. Canadians feel that consideration ought to be given to this.
That discussion resulted in a proposal which was adopted and which goes a long way to meeting the position taken by my colleague. That was the proposal that family allowances be subjected to income tax at the full rates. The effect of that taxation is that approximately $600 million of the $2 billion paid is recaptured by the federal treasury in the form of income tax. It can be seen that a policy that costs $2 billion ends up having a net cost of $1,400 million.
At this time the government is not contemplating going any further and taking back any more of the family allowance than it does through the income tax system for those families with higher incomes. But I would like to put this question to the hon. member and those who feel we should go further. What really is the difference between taking back more of the family allowance than we do and reducing the exemption or deduction which we give families under the income tax system in respect of children? The act gives a child deduction. That again recognizes the fact of dependency. I think one can make the same defence of the deduction for children as one can of the family allowance.


PENITENTIARIES-MILLHAVEN-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON GASSING AND BEATING OF INMATES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, on November 21, 1975, I raised the question of the government's policy with respect to an investigation of an incident at Millhaven Penitentiary relating to certain inmates located in the solitary confinement section of that institution. This incident related to alleged gassing and beating of inmates.
At the same time I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) whether or not public hearings were contemplated with respect to the situation at Millhaven and in other penitentiaries across Canada. The Solicitor General indicated that an investigation was contemplated by the Penitentiary Correctional Ombudsman, and in fact that person is now conducting hearings relating to the Millhaven incidents.
The investigation now taking place only serves to highlight the government's lack of any consistent policy with
Adjournment Debate
respect to prison reform, particularly concerning solitary confinement practices and facilities in federal penitentiaries across the country. The attitude of the government and the Solicitor General in this area, as in many others, is simply to approach each incident with the well-known local brush fire approach to penal reform rather than coming to grips with the fundamental root causes of the problem.
In the first report of the Correctional Ombudsman in July, 1974, Miss Hansen asked for a special study of the use of dissociation in federal prisons, complaining that solitary confinement as a punishment is both cruel and unevenly applied across the country. Recently, Mr. Justice D. V. Heald of the Federal Court of Canada in a judgment described the use of solitary confinement at the British Columbia Penitentiary as cruel and unusual punishment, contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Why does the Solicitor General therefore not immediately declare the government's intentions with respect to prison reform? If the government is sincerely interested in reform, why does it delay in having the fullest possible public inquiry into the conditions in the federal penal institutions? Is it the government's intention to introduce legislation concerning this matter? Is it not reasonable to ensure that the fullest possible representations on this topic are received?
I note that there is apparently evidence before the Hansen investigation that attempts to form prisoner's committees to voice prisoner's concerns and recommendations for improvement and reform were met by the transfer of committee members to other institutions and the placing of others in solitary confinement.
In conclusion, the Solicitor General owes it to the House and the country to give us a clear and unequivocal statement on these issues, to table the report on solitary confinement, to reply to the Federal Court judgment respecting penitentiary conditions in solitary confinement, and to let us know whether the government has any plans in the area of prison reform to avoid further or more serious incidents than that experienced at Millhaven on November 3 last.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself to the original question asked in the House on November 21 last, may I make some brief comments.
The concern of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has been expressed in this House and across the land on numerous occasions. He is interested in prison reform, reform in the nature of establishing penitentiaries of a much smaller size designed to hold between 100 and 150 inmates, instead of 450. The Solicitor General has been trying to establish such institutions so that there might be closer contact, closer supervision, and better means of rehabilitating prisoners, The hon. member mentioned committees of prisoners in penitentiaries. I have met some of these committees in company with the Solicitor General, and as long as they conduct themselves in a meaningful manner their views are listened to and referred to the proper authorities for action.
With respect to the specific incident the hon. member mentioned as occurring on November 3, 1975, this incident

January 26, 1976
Adjournment Debate
happened at the Millhaven institution when tear gas was used to pacify some rebellious and noisy inmates in one area of the dissociation ranges. I might say that many of those who are in these dissociation ranges are there for their own protection, though others are there for disciplinary purposes.
The incident was reported to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries and an administrative inquiry was convened. On November 4, 1975, the correctional officer at the time of the incident was suspended from duty pending the completion of the administrative inquiry. This senior officer was reinstated on duty on November 13, 1975. Disciplinary charges have been laid against him, heard at the institutional level, and referred to the regional director's office for decision. This administrative inquiry revealed facts which were not known on November 3 and 4, 1975. In the light of these new facts, the Solicitor General has requested the correctional investigator, Miss Inger Hansen, to undertake an inquiry into the new facts. This inquiry commenced on January 19 last.
The terms of reference of the inquiry are as follows:
1.	The events leading up to the use of gas and force in the cell range G-l and the environment control area of Mill-haven institution on November 3, 1975, as well as the events following the said use of gas and force, and whether the directives, instruction and standing orders which pertain to the use of gas and force were followed.
2.	Make suggestions with a view to improving the directives, instructions, and standing orders which pertain to the use of gas and force, and/or the way in which such directives, instructions, and standing orders are used.
I am not at present in a position to give the House a full report of the occurrence. That will have to wait until Miss Hansen completes her report. However, I can say that as a result of these incidents some 70 inmates who were in dissociation at the Millhaven institution have been transferred to the Regional Reception Centre, (Ontario), the Collins Bay institution or the Joyceville institution so as to allow the institutional authority to free some correctional officers to maintain the normal activities and programs of the institution since some correctional officers had withdrawn their services on an overtime basis.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, January 27, 1976