1975-02-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the pleasure to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the table the fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to take up too much of the time of the House. In the ten years that I have been in the House, this is the first time that I have intruded upon the goodwill of the House and Mr. Speaker's patience with respect to what may be a grievance but in fact appears to be a very clear question of privilege. I rise on a matter of privilege concerning the position taken by the National Harbours Board which affects my rights as a member of this House and which, indeed, strikes at the most basic historical and traditional privilege of this House, namely, that of being a representative institution.
The incident arises from an attempt, or rather a series of attempts, over the past year on the part of the National Harbours Board to impose on the port of Halifax and Dartmouth a system of shed rentals. This policy has been universally condemned by each and every segment of the port communities, including the mayors, members of parliament and members of the Shipping Federation of Canada.
As a final effort to see if the deadlock could be broken, the Shipping Federation of Canada requested a meeting with the National Harbours Board. The board accepted, but insisted that this meeting take place in Montreal, and the federation agreed. Its members travelled there on Monday, February 24. The meeting was not chaired by the chairman of the National Harbours Board but by the vice-chairman, and representative on the board of the St. Lawrence river ports, Mr. Guy Beaudet, acting as the official spokesman of the National Harbours Board.
After what has been described as a stormy meeting, aggravated by the fact that the St. Lawrence board
member was in the position of ultimate authority over the Atlantic port system, as reported in the Halifax Mail Star of Tuesday, February 25, a warning was issued to those in attendance.
The gist of what I have to say follows. On the front page lead story in the Halifax Mail Star referred to, the following paragraph appeared:
Halifax representatives of the Shipping Federation of Canada were "warned" by the vice-chairman of the National Harbours Board that they were not to release details of the policy (already in circulation) to the public or members of parliament.
Since there appear on the order paper of this House several unanswered and, incidentally, starred questions on this matter in my name, I can only conclude that this threat of dire consequences was directed at me and at my fellow representatives of the Halifax and Dartmouth port community, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Inasmuch as ministers of the Crown are also members of parliament, I think that this exclusion would have applied to them as well. Mr. Speaker, I have since verified that these comments were in fact uttered, although no recording of the meeting was kept.
I submit that it is incredible that an agency of the federal Crown with the authority and absolute power of the National Harbours Board should make such a statement, attempting to enjoin responsible citizens from communicating with members of parliament and with ministers of the Crown. I would suggest that this threat, this intimidation, this senseless coercion, affects my privilege and affects materially the privilege of the House. If this institution is to keep its cherished representative value, then I would submit it is a logical and physical prerequisite that representations must always be able to be made freely and without impediment to members of this chamber.
When that ability is strangled, the ability of this House to continue to represent is dead. Our trust is to preserve that ability, a trust which weighs most heavily on the first commoner. Every member of this chamber has taken an oath. There is no reason why members of the Shipping Federation of Canada cannot communicate with a member of parliament. The oath of a member of the National Harbours Board is no more sacred than that taken by hon. members of this House. Our interests are common, in fact.
I refer Your Honour to your own comments the other day in speaking to questions of privilege somewhat similar-although different in some aspects-raised by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). With respect to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa Your Honour said, and I quote:

February 26, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Forrestall
In the final analysis, it would be almost impossible for the House to say that the complaint...
And I take this to mean a complaint or any complaint.
... against government services would not qualify as a question of privilege. I hope hon. members would be unanimous that questions of privilege are not suitable for that kind of grievance.
A little later on Your Honour goes on to say:
Some of them will amount to legitimate grievances that ought to be brought to the doorstep of the minister responsible. Therefore, the only vehicle we have now is the question of privilege. If we accept a question of privilege in its classic terms as not suitable for accomplishing this objective, then we must surely begin to ask ourselves if we ought not now, in recognition of the many important areas into which members have to bring themselves, to be examining new effective and direct procedures to air those grievances that are legitimate grievances which arise outside the House but which do not qualify as questions of privilege.
I would suggest that Your Honour not comment necessarily on that ruling but to apply your own admonition, perhaps Your Honour might be better serving the needs of parliament if the Chair were to recognize that in fact we have no other method of bringing what may or may not be legitimate grievances before this chamber and before responsible ministers. Without elaborating on that, because we do not have any other vehicle, it may well be that Your Honour could again reiterate or suggest that a way out of this dilemma is a provision within the rules of the House for other methods of dealing with matters of this nature. But in the absence of that, I had no resource but to raise this question of the propriety of a senior member of the public service threatening members of a Canadian constituency, whatever their responsibility, and in fact warning and threatening them not to communicate with members of parliament.
If it is found that there is a prima facie case, I would be very pleased to move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to forthwith give a full and frank explanation of his department's and the government's policy with respect to the warning and conduct of the National Harbours Board, before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was good enough not only to give the Chair the required notice under the rules of this question of privilege, but indeed, to give within that notice sufficient detail to enable the Chair to be somewhat prepared for the argument which the hon. member has so ably put forward.
I think the hon. member has pointed out the similarity to those questions of privilege put forward a few days ago by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa and the hon. member for Laprairie and it is more than I could overlook. Accordingly, as I said on that occasion, the classic definition of a question of privilege does not fit circumstances in which a member in his duties outside this House finds that his scope is being restricted or attempts are being made to restrict his scope of intervention and effective work on behalf of not only his own constituents but his point of view as a member of the federal parliament. It is, nonetheless, another example of the serious problems which can arise when the scope of activity of a member is restricted in that way or when attempts are made to restrict it.

For the moment, I feel absolutely certain that the classic definition of a question of privilege as we know it does not fit because it does not affect the right of speech of the hon. member in this House. Indeed, his right of speech in this House to complain and to raise this grievance is unquestioned. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility is very important to the parliamentary system. The minister ought to be questioned about this. Within the limits of the powers available to me I will recognize the hon. member in the question period today, and if the answer of the minister is not sufficiently expansive to satisfy him, he will receive priority treatment on the adjournment debate. That is the least the Chair can do at the present time.
It is to be hoped that the procedure committee, which has a blanket reference, might take cognizance of this very important development and try to find a way through which meaningful confrontation between the minister and the hon. member might take place. I might add that not only do I feel the classic question of privilege does not cover the situation, I am not even sure that if it were accepted as a question of privilege the result would give the member any satisfaction. A finding by this House that a question of privilege exists, or a subsequent finding by a committee that a question of privilege exists, might be the legal result but might not be very effective in remedying the situation. Surely a direct, one to one confrontation, is more effective.
Within those limits I will take all possible steps to see that the hon. member is provided with that opportunity within existing procedures.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This urgent and pressing matter is the incredible order issued by the Minister of National Revenue to business establishments to deliver their federal sales tax collections before the end of February at their own cost and expense to the government by any other means than the Post Office mails-a government run monopoly. This order is issued under threat of reprisal for late delivery of collections and is a flagrant repudiation of the law that posting in a mail drop is delivery to Her Majesty. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the government accept the consequences of the failure of the Post Office to deliver the mails, as Canadian citizens must, and extend the time limited for federal sales tax payments by business establishments until postal service is back to normal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
February 26, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF FOOD PRICES REVIEW
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I too ask the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The Food Prices Review Board today released its study on nutrition. The report found that there are serious deficiencies in the diets of Canadians, especially protein deficiencies among older men and women and calcium deficiencies among all age groups except the very young. In my view this is exacerbated by the increase in the price of meat products and milk. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the report of the Food Prices Review Board on Nutrition, released this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. As it is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent question.
Owing to the terrific increase in crimes and murders in Quebec, especially in Montreal, and as it is urgent to bring correctives to the problem, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed immediately to inquire whether capital punishment should be restored in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Impaired Drivers


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



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing concern to Canadian businessmen, namely, the requirement that all package labels be printed in both official languages as of September 1. The sudden urgency arises from the recent decisions of a number of foreign exporters not to comply with the law, thus effectively cutting off supply and, hence, the livelihood of a number of Canadian businessmen who are under the impression that the government is doing nothing to alleviate the problem. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the House direct this matter to the Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs for complete study of its effects on small and large businesses and the Canadian economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent for the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent matter.
Given the fact that alcoholism at the steering wheel is responsible for the great majority of fatal road accidents, and since Holland, in the face of this plague, has implemented legislation aimed at freeing Dutch roads of 99 per cent of the drivers under the influence of alcohol, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs review the legislation implemented by Holland to face this plague of alcoholism at the steering wheel and report to the House on the advisability of passing similar legislation to free Canadian roads of the plague of drunken drivers.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order

February 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions
43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



BROADCASTING ACT


James Aloysius McGrath: for leave to introduce Bill C-380, to amend the Broadcasting Act (guidelines respecting portrayal of sex and violence).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clean up the jungle of sex and violence that is becoming characteristic of Canadian television.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.']
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1, 25, 286, 346, 785, 811, 838, 900, 972, 973, 1,015, 1,049, 1,097, 1,109, 1,151, 1,164, 1,178, 1,196, 1,197, 1,252, 1,254, 1,261, 1,263, 1,276, 1,279, 1,298, 1,314, 1,322, 1,353, 1,367, 1,368, 1,456, 1,469, 1,514, 1,518, 1,546, and 1,575.
Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 66, 282, 410, 418, 466 and 962 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mb. Reynolds: 1.	Will the reasons for permitting or not permitting proposed foreign investments in Canada under the Foreign Investment Review Act be made available to the public in the form of published decisions?
2.	Will the continuing rules or restrictions on any foreign investor allowed to make an investment in Canada under the Foreign Investment Review Act, any applications to modify such rules and regulations and any decision by the Cabinet to vary such rules and regulations be made available to the public in published form?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 2. All
decisions under the foreign Investment Review Act will be published in summary form in the Canada Gazette. In addition, from time to time, there will be issued news releases which, in the case of allowed investments, will provide whatever information can be made available as to the reasons for the government's decisions to allow without breaking the confidentiality of the information supplied to the government, in confidence, by parties to the transaction or jeopardizing their legitimate commercial interests. Past practices in that regard are now under review with the object of making public more information than heretofore about the reasons for decisions to allow.


GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT USED BY PRIME MINISTER FOR VACATION
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What government aircraft transported the Prime Minister and his family at taxpayers expense to the Caribbean for a 1974 Easter vacation and (a) what is the cost per hour of keeping such an aircraft in the air including fuel, crew, etc. (b) how many flying-hours were involved in this case (c) on what date and time did the aircraft leave Canada and on what date and time did the aircraft return to Canada (d) how many gallons of jet fuel were consumed and what is the cost per gallon of such fuel?
2.	For what reason did the Prime Minister and his family not travel on regular scheduled commercial airlines to their Caribbean destination?
3.	What was the entire total cost to the taxpayers for any and all aspects of this trip on the part of the Prime Minister and members of his family?
4.	Did the government pay any portion of the cost of the Prime Minister's holiday trip to Antigua in 1974 and, if so, what was the total figure involved and for what specific items?
5.	Did the government pay any portion of the cost of the Prime Minister's skiing holiday trip to Switzerland in 1974 and, if so, what was the total figure involved and for what specific items?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Ministry of Transport and the Prime Minister's Office as follows: 1. (a) $650; (b) 12 flying hours; (c) Departed Canada 9035 hours, April 12, 1974, Returned Canada 2200 hours, April 17, 1974; (d) 6,700 gallons at 42.5<t per gallon.
2.	See page 8618, House of Commons Debates, Volume 117, Number 189, 1st Session, 29th Parliament and page 2136, Volume 118, Number 50, 2nd Session, 29th Parliament.
3.	MOT total costs $9,085.
4.	MOT Viscount used Ottawa-Toronto-Ottawa on two occasions-one at start of trip, one upon return of Prime Minister-total cost of $2,940.
5.	MOT Viscount used Ottawa-Montreal-Ottawa on return of Prime Minister from Europe-cost of $690.


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT-COMPENSATION
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was a flyer published on January 1, 1974 offering summer employment for the period May 1 to September 3, 1974 for young men to participate in the Changing of the Guard ceremony on Parliament Hill at a salary of $1,800?
February 26, 1975

2.	On March 31, were those enrolled informed that the pay was to be $1,500 and, if so, will the Department of National Defence live up to its original commitment?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. A flyer was issued by the Governor General's Foot Guards (Militia) (GGFG) late in 1973 for the purpose of recruiting militia men to serve with the Public Duties Detachment (PDD) which performs the Changing of the Guard Ceremony on Parliament Hill. The salary quoted, "approximately $1,800", was based on the new rates of pay for Reservists but erroneously applied to the old system of pay which permitted members of the PDD to advance in rank and trade during their period of employment, whereas under the new rates of pay incentive pay increments are granted only after completion of one year of service. Mobile Command advised the GGFG of the inaccuracies contained in the flyer in February, 1974 and directed the unit to remove the pamphlet from circulation.
2.	The GGFG contingent was assembled the weekend of March 31, 1974 and advised that the information relating to pay contained in the flyer was in error. They were all informed more than a month before their duties commenced that the minimum pay for the period May 1- September 3, 1974 would be $1,512. Subsequently this information was confirmed in writing to all members of the PDD, and 49 out of 50 agreed to serve at the announced salary of $1,512.


AMHERST DAILY NEWS
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was a DREE grant awarded to the Amherst Daily News of Amherst, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the amount of the grant (c) what were the funds to be used for specifically (d) has the payment of the grant been made by the government?
2.	Who is the publisher of the Amherst Daily News and who is the President of the company and the members of the Board of Directors?
3.	Was the publisher of the Amherst Daily News a candidate in the federal election campaign of October 30, 1972 and, if so, for what political party and what were the official results of that election campaign?
4.	Have similar DREE grants been awarded to other daily newspapers and, if so (a) what daily newspapers have received such grants (b) in what amounts (c) for what specific improvements?
5.	Have similar DREE grants been made available to radio and television stations and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) to what radio and television stations (c) for what specific purposes?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Chief Electoral Office as follows: 1. Under the authority of the Regional Development Incentives Act, an offer of an incentive grant to the Amherst Daily News was made on February 19, 1974, and accepted on February 22, 1974. The estimated amount of the development incentive to be paid is $28,164, based on expected eligible costs of $140,818. The offer was made to assist the applicant to expand and modernize its printing facility at Amherst. No funds had been expended as at October 8, 1974.
2.	The publisher of the Amherst Daily News and the president of this company is R. M. Van Snick. The directors are: B. Murphy, Vice-President and General Manager;
Order Paper Questions
Mary K. Brown, Secretary; and H. B. Rhude, Director (Lawyer).
3.	Yes. Voting results were as follows: Cumberland-Col-chester North: Robert C. Coates (P.C.), 19,455; R. M. Dick Van Snick (Lib.), 10,163; Allan McLean Marchbank (N.D.P.), 3,635; Robert Kirk, 245.
4.	(a), (b) and (c) Under Section 2(2) (c) of the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, a manufacturing or processing facility, for the purposes of eligibility under the provisions of the legislation, is defined as follows: "Manufacturing or processing operation means an operation whereby any goods, products, commodities or wares are created, fabricated or refined or made more marketable but does not include ... publishing other than printing." In reply to Question No. 223, asked during the Second Session of the 29th Parliament, an alphabetic listing was tabled on March 27, 1974, of companies that had accepted incentive grant offers from the Department under the Regional Development Incentives Act, or Section 10 of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Act, as of August 31, 1973, for the establishment, expansion or modernization of printing or related facilities. It was noted at that time that, while a certain number of the firms listed also operated publishing facilities, the grants were operated with their printing operations only. That listing included the names of four firms that publish daily newspapers. These four firms are: Sun Publishing Co., Brandon, Manitoba; Gazette Canadian Printing Company, Montreal, Quebec; Le Soleil Ltd., Quebec, Quebec; and Publication du Journal de Quebec (Offset) Inc. Other details relating to the grants offered and accepted by the companies concerned are shown in the listing. There have been no similar incentive grant offers made and accepted between August 31, 1973, and October 9, 1974, except as indicated in 1 above.
5.	No; (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.


CANADIAN RESIDENTS LIABLE FOR INCOME TAX OF LESS THAN 10 PER CENT
Mr. Kaplan: For the most recent year for which figures are available, how many Canadian residents had incomes within the levels shown and were liable for income tax of less than 10 per cent thereof (a) $25,000 to $50,000 (b) $50,000 to $100,000 (c) $100,000 to $200,000 (d) $200,000 and over (e) $50,000 and over?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: (a)
2,486; (b) 327; (c) 75; (d) 49; (e) 451. This information is based on information derived from the 1972 Statistical Master file (the most recent year for which figures are available). Total income is defined as total income assessed for tax purposes, and includes income for employment, adult training allowances, research grants etc., pension income, income from other sources (including unemployment insurance benefits, dividends, interest, etc.) and net incomes from self employment. Tax payable includes federal and provincial Taxes assessed but excludes Quebec provincial taxes.

Order Paper Questions


EMPLOYEES OF THE ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Economic Council of Canada (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year
(c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2. What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Council?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1.
March 31, 1968	March 31, 1970 March 31, 1972	March 31, 1974(a)	104	111	110	127(b)	1,138,311	1,265,985	1,516,978	1,855,692(c) (i)	16	18	23	21(ii) (iii)	Nil	Nil	2	2Nil 1 35,000-39,000	Nil	Nil	Nil2. (1) 32,600	40,000-45,000	44,000 -54,000(2) 27,450	24,000-31,000	28,000-35,000	33,000 -42,000(3) 24,000	24,000-31,000	28,000-35,000	33,000-42,000(4) 23,000	22,000-27,000	25,000-31,000	29,000-37,000(5) 22,500	22,000-27,000	25,000-31,000	29,000-37,000


USE OF THE NATIONAL FLAG
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the protocol determining which officials of the government, or those accredited as diplomats or otherwise to Canada are entitled to show national flags on their official vehicles?
2.	Among Canadian officials, is that right restricted to representatives of the Head of State?
3.	Does the official vehicle of the Prime Minister carry a national flag and, if so, on what date did that practice begin and what is its justification?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	In so far as the Departments of External Affairs and of the Secretary of State are concerned, the answer to part 1 is that there are no Canadian regulations concerning the flying of the national flag on the official vehicles of officials of the government. The international rules, which are accepted by Canada, appear in Article 20 of the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations and Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. These declare that the heads of diplomatic missions and consular posts may fly their national flag on their "means of transports", at their place of residence, and at their office premises. As a matter of courtesy and international custom the benefits of this rule are extended to heads of state, heads of government, and ministers of foreign affairs visiting Canada as guests of the government, whose national flags are displayed on their official vehicles and at their places of residence (except Rideau Hall).
2.	With regard to Part 2 the answer is, no. In so far as local protocol permits Canadian heads of post abroad may and frequently do fly the Canadian flag on their official vehicle and at their residences and office premises. Of the various heads of post, only ambassadors and high commissioners in commonwealth countries where the Queen is not sovereign are representatives of the head of state. It may be noted in this connection that the Governor General as the representative of the head of state in Canada flies his personal standard rather than the Canadian flag at his place of residence and on his motor vehicle. When in office the Administrator of the Government of Canada follows the same procedure.
3.	The Prime Minister's official vehicle carries a flag when the Prime Minister is in the vehicle on official occasions. The date on which the practice began is not known. In 1967, the Prime Minister was assigned an official vehicle and a flag was used on the vehicle on official occasions. It may be that prior to 1967 a flag was used on official vehicles assigned occasionally to the Prime Minister however records are not available to accurately verify this point. It is an international custom for heads of government to fly their national flag on their vehicle.


REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY EXPORTS
Mr. Herbert: In reference to the answer to Question No. 208, will the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce make public the Report on Construction Industry Exports and will the Department announce any actions taken or contemplated resulting from the submission of this Report?


Gaston Clermont: Yes, and the department has taken the following steps: Initiated the Multilateral Project Information System to alert the Canadian construction industry to forthcoming projects financed by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank; Working with the Export Committee of the Canadian Construction Association to inform companies of opportunities for construction exports; Encouraged the industry to use the Program for Export Market Development. (Part of this program is designed to encourage the formation of consortia for overseas projects); The Trade Commissioner Service has been alerted to notify interested Canadian construction companies of overseas projects.


SECURITY-INVOLVEMENT BY DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Which members of the Security Branch, the Military Police or the Intelligence Branch of the Canadian Armed Forces are at or have attended or instructed at the CIA-sponsored International Police Academy in Washington, D.C.?
2.	Is Colonel Dabros, the present Director of Security, Canadian Armed Forces, a former student or instructor at the Academy and (a)

February 26, 1975

if so, on what date and what subjects did he cover (b) if not, what was the nature of his duties during his posting to Washington?
3.	Is it customary to have a Canadian Military Police or Security Officer posted to Washington, a city where Canada has no troops to police?
4.	With reference to the answer to Part 17 of Question No. 1,849 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament, where it is stated that Colonel Dabros held responsibilities in relation to receiving "reports on student unrest" in 1969 and 1970, will the military be stepping up its surveillance activities of colleges and universities?
5.	Has Colonel Dabros, or the Armed Forces Security Branch, been engaged in ascertaining voting patterns of Canadian Armed Forces personnel?
6.	(a) How many staff, including reserve, full-time and part-time military and civilian, does Colonel Dabros have under his command (b) where are the major security units and staff located (c) how many and which ones and which staff members are located on or near a university or college in Canada (d) does Colonel Dabros have a university degree (e) what staff, facilities or equipment does the Security Branch possess for electronic surveillance?
7.	(a) Is the present Director of Security (i) a former member (ii) currently a member of the Police Security Planning and Analysis Group of the Department of the Solicitor General (b) does he share membership with a member of this group on any interdepartmental or security committees and, if so, which ones and what access has he to the Solicitor General who may legally authorize wiretapping or electronic surveillance of subversive groups?
8.	(a) On what date was Colonel Dabros, present Director of Security of the Canadian Armed Forces, appointed (b) what is his present salary (c) at the time of his present rank and/or appointment, how many officers in the Security Branch and in the Armed Forces were equal to him in his previous rank and possessed seniority over him?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. None.
2.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Colonel Dabros was the Executive Staff Officer to the Commander, Canadian Defence Liaison Staff, Washington, D.C.
3.	No. However, staff appointments in Washington or elsewhere are opened to officers of any classification, including officers from the Security Branch.
4.	No. The Department of National Defence is not engaged in this type of activity.
5.	No.
6.	(a) Presently none, (b) and (c) It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose the location of these units, (d) No. (e) It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose this information.
7.	(a) (i) and (ii) No. (b) No.
8.	(a) Colonel Dabros was appointed Director of Security on July 1, 1973 and relinquished this on August 4, 1974. (b) Salary range $27,000-$30,600. (c) At the time of Col. Dabros promotion to his present rank no officers in the security classification were senior to him and two officers possessed equal seniority.


CANADIAN SECURITY-CONFIDENTIAL BRIEFINGS
Mr. Rodriguez: Did any senior member of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, formerly the Security Planning and Research Group, and/or the RCMP Security Service and/or the Armed Forces Security Branch and/or the Security Branch of the Department of Supply and Services, ever deliver a confidential briefing on the threat to Canada's security by subversive elements to any group of industrialists in Toronto and Montreal and/or Vancouver and, if so (a) who were these
Order Paper Questions
government officials and on what date and where did the briefing take place (b) did the briefing concentrate on labour problems and promise to provide industrialists with confidential data on subversive organizations, including labour unions (c) which organizations were named (d) who were the industrialists present (e) was any solicitation made in any way in connection with this briefing for funds for the Liberal Party (f) does the government regard such appearances by public servants as partisan (g) what other organizations have received such briefing (h) did the resignation of Mr. John Starnes as Director General of RCMP Security Services result from his being coerced into taking part in such practices?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows: Yes, (a) Mr. Robin Bourne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Police and Security Planning and Analysis Branch, Ministry of the Solicitor General; and Mr. John Starnes, Director General, Security Service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The briefings took place in Toronto and January 31, 1972, Montreal on February 2, 1972, and Vancouver on May 25, 1972. (b) No. (c) and (d) These were briefings which were similar to those given by the RCMP during the last decade to various interested groups. They were more general in nature than those delivered in camera to the parliamentary committee on justice and legal affairs. It would not be appropriate to discuss either the organizations named or those who attended these briefings, (e) No. (f) No. (g) See answers (c) and (d) above, (h) No. The briefings were made in full cooperation between the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the RCMP Security Service since the briefing of concerned citizens is considered to be a part of the role of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and of the RCMP.


PRIME MINISTER'S STAFF
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date did Mr. Jim MacDonald, Liberal candidate in the July 8 election in Grenville-Carleton, become a member of the staff of the Prime Minister's Office?
2.	(a) What are all his duties (b) what is his annual salary (c) what are all his qualifications for this employment (d) was the fact that he is a former Liberal Party candidate a consideration in the obtaining of such employment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. September 9, 1974.
2. (a) Policy assistant; (b) $20,000-$25,000; (c) Overall suitability of the individual's professional, academic and personal qualifications in relation to the job requirement, (d) All appointments are governed by statutes and this appointment falls in the area of appointments of personal ministerial staff-party affiliation may or may not be a consideration in this instance just as has been the practice followed by ministers of governments in the past. This applies not only to personal ministerial staff but also to personal staff of leaders of opposition parties.


BEEF GRADING
Mr. MacLean: 1. What action is being taken by the government to assure that meats which are graded "C" or "B" in the abattoir retain the same grade rating throughout the distribution system until purchased by the consumer?

February 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2.	What action is being taken by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to assure that the differential in price of "A" and "C" grades of beef is retained throughout the distribution system until purchased by the consumer?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows: 1. Graded beef carcasses are appraised for maturity, quality and fat level and the appropriate grade stamped on each carcass 10 times (five on each side)-on the short hip, sirloin, short loin rib and chuck. When the grade stamps have been applied, the plant applies a registered coded ribbon-brand, which is a continuous ribbon-like brand which runs from the hip to the front portion of the chuch. This brand must be applied at the time of grading and under the general supervision of the grading inspector. The ribbon-brands designate grade both by words and colour. Grade stamps and colour-coded ribbon brands are carried through the merchandising chain, however, at the retail level during breaking of carcasses into retail cuts, all or part of the stamps and ribbon-brand may disappear due to cutting and trimming.
2.	There is no legislation administered by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which regulates the price differential between grades of beef to ensure that such differential are retained throughout the distribution system. These differentials have been established by competition in the market place and recently selling practices have changed at the retail level, that have given more prominence to the maintenance of these differentials. The beef inquiry recently announced by the government will be examining this question. If there are recommendations to the department on this matter, the department will be prepared to respond at that time.


DOCUMENT ADVERTISING OPENINGS FOR SEASONAL EMPLOYEES IN THE ONTARIO POSTAL REGION
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a document advertising openings for seasonal employees in the Ontario Postal Region circulated showing the new pay rates would be $3.84 per hour for inside (sorting), $4.02 per hour for heavy work (mail handler) and $4.21 per hour for outside (letter carrier)?
2.	Was a further document sent to each accepted applicant showing a change in pay rates to be $2.50 per hour for inside work and $2.75 per hour for outside work?
3.	What are all the reasons for the discrepancy shown in the rates of pay?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. Yes, however this was issued in error.
2.	Yes, a further document was sent to each accepted applicant showing a change in pay rates to be $2.50 per hour for inside work and $2.75 per hour for outside work except for some 17 candidates in the Ottawa Post Office who were not notified of the rate change, consequently, they were paid at the higher rate until they were notified of the change in rates on December 6, 1974.
3.	The rates $3.84, $4.02, and $4.21 are contract rates established for employees carrying out the full range of duties. The rates $2.50 and $2.75 were established for Christmas helpers who are not required to carry out the full range of duties.


DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL-TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What documents of any and all description (such as any type of form, records, stationery, employee directives, etc.) within the entire Department of the Solicitor General have to be translated into the French language?
2.	Retroactive to what date will all past records of the Department have to be translated?
3.	At what date must all of these translations be completed?
4.	What amount of money was spent in the years 1973 and 1974 for translating such documents?
5.	What will be the total cost of translating all existing documents, forms, stationery, records, etc. within the Department's entire operation?
6.	What is the total additional yearly cost of ordering all new forms, stationery, etc. in two languages compared to the cost in one language?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of the Solicitor General and the Secretary of State as follows: Ministry Secretariat, Canadian Penitentiary Service, National Parole Board & Service: 1. All documents such as forms, stationery, employee directives, etc. are translated into the appropriate official language. Records, such as employees' files or correspondence on any other file, are translated only if required.
2 and 3. Past records are translated only as required. Many documents in the past, such as employee directives, forms, stationery, etc., were bilingual. However, because of the government's official languages policy, they have been reviewed and, where necessary, changes made to bring them into line with the Federal Identity Program. As the Ministry of the Solicitor General has only been in existence for seven years, the amount of translation required on past records is minimal.
4.	It is difficult to provide a precise answer to the question in terms of the Department of the Solicitor General, since, in order to achieve greater efficiency, the government of Canada has consolidated all translation, interpretation and terminology under a single administration, designed to serve all the departments and public bodies which depend on them. Costs are not apportioned according to the types of activities mentioned above. However, the total demand for translation as represented by the number of words is available for the years 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. The production in words for 1972-1973 was 607,442; for 1973-1974 it was 713,000. On the basis of an analysis of operating costs for the translation bureau, the total operating costs are estimated at about ten cents per word for the two years in question.
5.	Due to the number and variety of factors involved, such as the time required for translators to complete each item or task, the continuously increasing cost for personnel, accommodation and material, no reasonable estimate of cost can be determined.
6.	No comparative costs are available.
Note: Translation services for the Ministry of the Solicitor General are provided by the Secretary of State Department. No charges are attached to this service.
February 26, 1975

Royal Canadian Mounted Police: 1. All directives, forms and stationery must be printed in a bilingual format.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	September, 1976.
4.	1972-1973: $264,722; 1973-1974: $314,083.
5.	It is impossible to estimate what the total cost will be.
6.	Approximately $325,868.97.
Note: The RCMP have their own translation service and are able, therefore, to provide the above information.


PERCENTAGE OF TAX AUDITS RESULTING IN INCREASED ASSESSMENTS
Mr. Herbert: With reference to the answer to Question No. 578, of the tax filers
Order Paper Questions
audited in each group, what percentage, if any, of the audits resulted in increased assessments and, if there were increased assessments, what proportion of these were not contested?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The
information necessary to answer Question No. 1,151 is derived from a different source to that used for Question No. 578. The two data sources do not compare exactly due to a different time frame basis for extracting the data. They may be considered however, to be reasonably comparable. The second part of the question dealing with contested assessments cannot be answered exactly as requested. We do not have information available on ones and how many were contested. Further, we can only provide information relating to contested assessments for each range as specified, where the subsequent action results in a change. The accompanying table indicates the number of contested audits completed in each fiscal year which resulted in a change from the previous assessment.
Audits of Large Corporations-Increased Assessments and Appeals or Objections Gross Income Range
1971-1972	200,000,000 and over	25,000,000 to 200,000,000	5,000,000 to 25,000,000Audits with Increases All Audits (per cent)	70.3	56.6	58.9Audits Not Appealed or Objected* All Audits with Increases (per cent)	69.2	61.7	73.81972-1973	Audits with Increases All Audits (per cent)	58.5	54.0	56.8Audits Not Appealed or Objected* All Audits with Increases (per cent)	25.0	72.5	76.21973-1974	Audits with Increases All Audits (per cent)	69.7	55.1	53.4Audits Not Appealed or Objected* All Audits with Increases (per cent)	43.5	68.6	79.5
*This percentage reflects the complement of the number of audits that are appealed or objected to that result in a change in the original assessment.


COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): How many commissions of inquiry (a) have been appointed since 1963 (b) are still in operation?
was allocated to Terra Power Tractor Co. Limited of Saskatoon and, in each case (a) from which department (b) for what purposes?


Mitchell William Sharp: None.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Commissions of Inquiry under Part I of the Inquiries Act. (a) 30; (b) 5.


GRANTS TO TERRA POWER TRACTOR CO. LTD., OF SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Hnatyshyn: How much in government grants of all kinds from all departments


MR. PITFIELD-DAYS ABSENT
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 982 to the effect that Mr. Michael Pitfield was not absent from duty as Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs "except as provided by Public Service Regulations'*, on what days was Mr. Pitfield absent from his job as

Order Paper Questions
Deputy Minister since January 1, 1974 and, in each case, what specific Public Service Regulation permitted such absences?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to Question 445 answered December 18, 1974, Hansard No. 56, page 2350, regarding Executive Development Leave, August 10, 1974 to January 10, 1975. It is not customary to make public detailed personnel information such as an employee's use of sick or vacation leave as provided by Public Service Regulations. A copy of Order in Council P.C. 1973-1/2128 of July 17, 1973, "Guidelines on non-salary compensation (including leave) for deputy ministers and other persons appointed by the Governor in Council" will be forwarded to the hon. member for Leeds.


EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT LEAVE-MR. PITFIELD
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 446 to the effect that total expenses for Mr. Michael Pitfield from April 20, 1968 to October 24, 1974 totalled $27,142.52, does any portion of this amount include expenses in connection with Mr. Pitfield's education at Harvard University or any other institution, travelling to or from any educational institution and, if so, what is a complete breakdown of such items with costs?
2.	What is a complete breakdown of items and costs involved under "Executive Development Leave" totalling $2,163.63?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Yes. Includes the $2,163.63 referred to in part 2, plus travel expenses of $146.99 relating to Executive Development Leave at Harvard.
2. Accommodation and utilities, $969.00; Rental security deposit, $551.00*; Salary equalization, $643.63; Total $2,163.63.
*Note-Security deposit refunded to Receiver General on completion of course.


REGIONAL RATE OF PAY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Forrestall: How many people as employees of the government or its agencies were paid a regional rate in 1974, 1969 and 1964, expressed in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total government employment?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: In
September 1964 there were 25,376 full-time employees paid on a regional rate basis. This represents 15.5 per cent of the total number of full-time employees under the Civil Service Act, Ships' Officers and Crews Regulations and the Prevailing Rate Regulations. In September 1969, there were 41,402 employees paid on a regional rate basis. This represents 22 per cent of the total number of employees under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, Schedule 1, Part 1. In September 1974, there were 48,300 employees paid on a regional basis. This represents 19.5 per cent of the total number of employees under the Public Staff Relations Act, Schedule 1, Part 1.


ABOLITION OF REGIONAL PAY RATES
Mr. Forrestall: Does the government envisage the day when the present system of paying government employees regional rates will be abolished or eliminated and, if so, on what date?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: it should eventuate that existing regional pay differentials outside the Public Service disappear, then the government, as employer, in keeping with its policy of pay comparability, will cease to pay regional rates. Since it is impossible to predict if and when regional pay differentials in Canada will disappear, the government, as employer, cannot specify a date for the abolition or elimination of regional rates.


CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 1975-DARTMOUTH, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the construction programme for the City of Dartmouth for the Department of Public Works for the year 1975?
2.	What is the projected construction programme for the Department for 1976?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. There was no contruction program undertaken in the city of Dartmouth by this department during 1974/75, either chargeable to its own funds or on behalf of other government departments.
2. The projected construction program for 1975/76 fiscal year includes the following projects, all of which will be funded by other government departments: (a) Project, Bedford Institute of Oceanography Laboratory; Department, Energy, Mines and Resources; (b) Project, Wharf Extension; Department, Ministry of Transport; (c) Project, Prison Hospital; Department, Solicitor General.


ADDITIONAL RCMP SERVICES-NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the Province of Nova Scotia made any requests for additional RCMP services along the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia?
2.	What would be the attitude of the government to such a request should it not already have been forthcoming?
3.	If a request has been made, what action is the government taking in that respect?
4.	Would the government take unilateral action to increase RCMP protection for the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia if no request is forthcoming from the provincial government and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. No.
Increases in man-power were initiated by the Commanding Officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Nova Scotia in consultation with the provincial attorney-general.
2.	Any request would be studied and, if the increases were warranted, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would include them in his program forecast submission to Treasury Board.
3.	Additional positions, with he concurrence of the provincial attorney-general, have been programmed for April 1, 1975.
February 26, 1975

4.	As was pointed out in the reply to Part 1, requests for establishment increases are normally initiated by the Commanding Officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Nova Scotia and, with the concurrence of the provincial attorney-general, are included in the program forecast. It is impossible to theorize as to what action would be taken should the provincial attorney-general not agree to proposed changes as each case must be judged on its own merits.


SUBSIDY ON MILK
Mr. Robinson: What was the total cost of the subsidy on milk in 1973 and 1974?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Subsidies paid on powder and fluid milk were:
1973	1974
Fluid	*21,659,898.06	*87,112.299,12Powder	1,209,264.19	8,358,507.37Total	*22,869,162.25	*95,470,806.49


PRICE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWDERED AND FLUID MILK
Mr. Robinson: What is the price difference for powdered milk as compared to fluid milk?


Eugene Whelan: Skim milk powder is sold at the retail level in various sized packages with savings per pound as the package size increases. Similarly, fluid milk is sold in various sizes of packages with savings per quart as the package size increases. Fluid milk prices per quart are generally less than half the price of a pound of skim milk powder Skim milk powder, which receives a federal subsidy of 29 cents per pound, however, is reconstituted to make four quarts from one pound. Thus the cost of one quart of reconstituted skim milk is approximately 20 cents as compared to recent Toronto prices for fluid milk of approximately 50 cents per quart. While these prices may vary across the country, the large price difference for reconstituted skim milk compared to fluid milk is always evident.


FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES-DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Agriculture on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Eugene Whelan: 1. (a)
9,494; (b) 9,774.
2. 1974: (a) 4,629; (b) 4,216; (c) 602; (d) 47. 1975: (a) 3,378; (b) 5,477; (c) 830; (d) 89.
Order Paper Questions


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
answer to this question for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. (a) 1678; (b) 1790.
2. In 1974: (a) 874; (b) 562; (c) 225; (d) 17. In 1975: (a) 725; (b) 706; (c) 302; (d) 57.
Note: The over-all increase during this period stems from the fact that in anticipation of the decentralization of the department a temporary freeze was placed on new appointments in 1973 and there was little or no replacement of personnel lost though normal attrition until the decentralization took place. It should also be noted that between 1974 and 1975 there were revisions in basic salary scales that affected the numbers in each salary range specified.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Veterans Affairs on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. (a) 8,836; (b) 7,107.
2. 1974: (a) 7,322; (b) 1,380; (c) 79; (d) 55; 1975: (a) 5,347; (b) 1,609; (c) 101; (d) 50.


CHAUFFEUR FOR PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Cossitt: What are the names and job designations of all persons who have been employed in the capacity of chauffeur for the Prime Minister since April 20, 1968 (a) on what dates were they hired and on what dates did they leave, if applicable (b) what is the salary in each case (c) what is a complete list of any previous government employment in each case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. D. J. K. Dempster-GLMDO 4 (General Labour Machine Driving-Operating), (a) November 15, 1968; (b) $3.77 per hour; (c) For the period April 20, 1968 to November 14, 1968, Mr. Dempster was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and was on loan to the PMO from National Defence Headquarters. Mr. Dempster served 28 years in the forces prior to his present appointment.

Order Paper Questions SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY


Mr. Robinson: Has the government any programme to encourage the sugar beet industry in Canada as a means of reducing the price of sugar and the necessity of importing sugar at high inflationary prices?


Eugene Whelan: In so far as the Agricultural Stabilization Act is concerned sugar beets is not a mandatory commodity and a support program is not currently in effect.


SEVERAL GRADES FOR PRODUCE
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of providing several grades of produce, apart from Canada No. 1, etc., so that up to 30 per cent of production will not be wasted as unfit for market, particularly when there is nothing wrong with the produce nutritionally, but primarily only in appearance of the vegetable, meat, etc.?


Eugene Whelan: In general, grades are provided beyond Canada No. 1 to cover all wholesome products. For meat there are grades to cover all livestock carcasses. For fresh fruits several additional grades are provided. For vegetables, the great demand is for Canada No. 1 and in case of most fresh vegetables one additional grade only is provided to cover the rest of the wholesome product.


COMPETITION FOR OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OFFICERS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to Public Service poster number 75 ASP CCID AS 5 advertising a competition for Official Languages Officers, for what reason are there no minimum educational requirements outlined or required in the poster for such positions?
2.	(a) Is it not customary for certain minimum educational standards to be required in connection with government employment depending on the nature of such employment in each case (b) is the only requirement in regard to government employment in connection with bilingual matters that the individual speak both languages at least to some degree regardless of education?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. The minimum educational requirements of the administrative services group are "an ability normally associated with completion of secondary school education and demonstrated capability, through work history, for administrative work in related areas". Except at the lower levels of the groups (levels 1 to 3), where the minima apply, or in special circumstances, where the particular requirements of the job demand higher or specialized educational qualifications, no reference is made to "educational" requirements as such. At more senior levels the "basic requirements" include an "ability" level more demanding but inclusive of the educational equivalent of lower levels. Poster competition 75-ASP-CCID-AS5 involves the AS7 level.
2. (a) Yes, it is customary for certain educational standards to be required depending on the nature of the duties in each case. However, the requirements are, in some cases, stated in terms of the knowledge or ability acquired through education, rather than in terms of formal certification. (b) Bilingual positions have the educational,

knowledge and ability requirements typical of the group and level to which they belong, except for additional requirements necessitated by special cases. The linguistic requirement of a bilingual position is the only requirement that does not apply. Once the successful candidate is chosen, language training is provided if needed to meet the linguistic requirements of the position.


AUSTRALIAN REQUIREMENTS OF VISAS FOR CANADIANS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the government's attitude to the decision of the Government of Australia to require visas for Canadian and Commonwealth citizens wishing to visit that country?
2.	Has the government in any way discussed, or made objection to, this move on the part of Australia and (a) if so, on what date and what are the details (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Has the government considered, or will it consider, reciprocal action to deal with this step taken by Australia?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The decision of the government of Australia was taken in the light of that country's interests on which it would not be appropriate for the Canadian government to comment. The decision applies to all countries except New Zealand.
2.	No objection has been registered. However the implications of this Australian decision have been discussed by officials of our two governments.
3.	The government has no plans at present to take reciprocal action in respect of Australia.


AIRPORT INQUIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Mazankowski: What was the total cost of the Airport Inquiry Commission headed by Justice Hugh Gibson?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As of
February 10, 1975-$756,379.33.


AMOUNT PAID TO EACH PROVINCE IN 1974 BY DREE AND PAIT
Mr. Reynolds: What were the actual dollar amounts paid out in 1974 to each individual province and territory (a) by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (b) by PAIT?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
(a)	Province
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974
Total Expenditure Budgetary and Non-Budgetary (SOOO's)
50,947
19,553
35,022
57,938
167,071
12,692
14,824
16,711
February 26, 1975

April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974	3.
Province	Total Expenditure Budgetary and Non-Budgetary (SOOO's)
Alberta	25,298
British Columbia	4,179
Not Allocated	20,109
Total	424,344
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:	
British Columbia	$ 3,986,532
Alberta	977,983
Saskatchewan	101,648
Manitoba	171,988
New Brunswick	24,725
Prince Edward Island	17,050
Nova Scotia	46,173
Newfoundland	-
Ontario	16,298,893
Quebec	5,772,761
North West Territories	*27,397,753


RETIRED RCMP PERSONNEL-PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired RCMP personnel and also the number of widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of RCMP personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


William Warren Allmand: 1 and 2.
	Retired R.C.M.P. Personnel	Widows
(a)	-	8(b)	37	6(<*)	25	9(d)	7	8(e)	46	13(f)	19	6(g)	27	21(h)	30	10(i)	15	9(i)	154	51(k)	206	52(1)	329	29(m)	319	36(n)	1,925	38
Order Paper Questions
Retired R.C.M.P.
Province	Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	52	7Prince Edward Island	23	2Nova Scotia	255	16New Brunswick	110	8Quebec	207	10Ontario	663	74Manitoba	148	14Saskatchewan	167	12Alberta	475	37British Columbia	936	109North West Territories	39	1Outside Canada	64	6Total	3,139	2964.	(a) 163; (b) $42.90.


LOANS FROM PIDA
Mr. Herbert: Who have been the recipients of loans from the PIDA loan programme, how much has each received and what has been the repayment experience to date?


Gaston Clermont: Company	Loan Repayment to Jan. 31/75
Novopharm Ltd.	$1,413,515	$468,655Sterilab Corp. Ltd.	65,430	$ 65,430


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Cossitt: What are the names and addresses of all printing firms in the Province of Ontario who received business from the government during the past fiscal year and what was the total amount in dollars paid by the government to each firm?
Return tabled.


NAMES OF LAWYERS RETAINED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	What were the names of all the lawyers used in the Province of Saskatchewan by the government or any Crown corporation in each year 1971, 1972, 1973 and the first six months of 1974?
2.	What were the amounts of fees paid to these lawyers in each of these years?
3.	Did any lawyer or firm receive fees in any of these years exceeding $5,000 and, if so, what were the names of such lawyers or firms and the amount of fees paid to each?

February 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During 1973-74, how many projects were submitted under the PACLE Programme for the creation of local employment (a) in total (b) by province?
2.	In which constituencies were they submitted?
3.	What amount was granted to each project?
4.	What was the total amount spent under this Programme?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE-NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM FRANCE EMPLOYED, 1964-73
Mr. Jones: 1.	How many persons from France (a) held positions or were employed in the government from the years 1964 to 1973 (b) presently hold positions or are employed in the government and (i) of these, how many were or are employed in lieu of serving in military service in France (ii) what are the names of such persons (iii) in what departments did they or do now hold positions (iv) what were their salaries (v) for how long a period were they so employed?
2.	What other countries have similar arrangements?
3.	What departments and which Minister or Ministers are responsible for the conduct and operation of such programmes?
Return tabled.


LIST OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LOCATED IN HULL SINCE 1968
Mr. Cossitt: What is the complete list of all government agencies, offices or establishments that have been located or expanded in whole or in part in the area of Hull, Quebec and in the surrounding counties since April 20, 1968 and, in each case, what is the name of the highest ranking government official involved in decisions bringing about such location?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE-NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC EMPLOYED IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Jones: 1.	How many residents of the Province of Quebec have moved to take up positions in New Brunswick with the Public Service or Crown corporations in each year 1970 to 1974 respectively and, of these (a) how many were new employees (b) how many were transferred or posted?
2.	(a) What positions were involved (b) where were the positions located (c) what were the salaries?
3.	For what reason were persons from the Province of New Brunswick not used for these positions?
Return tabled.


Mr. Broadbent:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would be so good as to inform us which ministers of the cabinet have not been doing their work this week.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister who, I believe is leaving for Europe where he will remain until the middle of March. I, of course, wish him a pleasant and successful trip.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the statement by the Acting Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the shortest trip the Prime Minister has ever made. I will not repeat my good wishes. I expect they have been related to the Prime Minister by the government House leader. My question is with regard to the mysterious program of consensus toward inflationary restraint. The other day the government House leader told us that if it is under any general direction, it is under the direction of the Prime Minister. During the time the Prime Minister is in Europe, from now until the middle of March, will he be giving this program general direction from there or has he reached a consensus with the Minister of Finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his good wishes. I believe this is an important trip from the Canadian point of view and that domestically it is important that we protect our markets there and seek co-operation in all the areas I will be discussing. Insofar as the fight against inflation is concerned, yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been in very close contact with the Minister of Finance. We were again discussing this very subject over the lunch hour. I feel very confident in his ability and the ability of my other ministers to continue this phase of the exploration while I am away.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who will be responsible for pursuing these explorations in the Prime Minister's absence? Brief-
February 26, 1975

ly, can the Prime Minister advise what they will be exploring? We have been trying to find that out for a couple of months. Before the Prime Minister leaves, will he advise us what the government is trying to reach a consensus for and who will be looking after it in his absence.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the meetings that are going on are, of course, going on under my direction. I am the one who has invited the various representatives of the labour, business and agricultural marketing sectors to meet with groups of ministers. I again issued some invitations recently. The meetings will be going on while I am away.


INFLATION-REASON MINISTER OF FINANCE CONTINUES TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH PROGRAM SEEKING CONSENSUS OF VARIOUS GROUPS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance who has the reputation of being an honest man. I wish to ask him very bluntly why he lends his name and reputation to such a farce and why he continues to accept the responsibility when the government treats his responsibility for his department with such contempt.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to tell the hon. member why, although two weeks ago tomorrow we had a fairly thorough exchange on this just after Orders of the Day. I need not recall to the hon. gentleman what was said because we were parties to that conversation, but I suggest to hon. members that it would be useful if they would look up those pages and see how fully I treated the answer at that time.
Basically, the government has rejected as an antidote against inflation a deflationary posture in terms of Draconian monetary and fiscal policies which would provoke massive unemployment in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We reject, as I think the Canadian people appear to have rejected, a compulsory system of income and price controls. The alternative before the country is for governments at all levels and all segments of the economy-business, labour, agriculture, the professions, owners of property-to seek some consensus voluntarily to moderate our demands on the economy. The hon. gentleman has often said that in his view inflation is the No. 1 problem in this country. I hope we can count on his co-operation in dealing with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INFLATION-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT STATE PROPOSALS FOR COUNTERACTING
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (Yorh-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of
Oral Questions
Agriculture on national television was quoted as saying that at the conference he attended recently in Toronto dealing with the question of inflation they were looking for good ideas. Will the minister indicate whether at that meeting he or his colleagues offered any ideas on behalf of the government as to how inflation might be curbed in this country?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have been looking to the opposition for quite some time and that's why we are going out to other places.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I did say in that interview following the meetings that if one good idea came from these meetings, the effort would be worth while. These people are very appreciative of the fact that we are meeting with them, and this exchange of ideas may help us do an even better job of fighting inflation than we are doing at the present time-and we are doing one of the best jobs in the whole world as far as that goes right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I take it from the minister's answer, then, that there are certainly no ideas being offered from the government side at this conference inasmuch as he says he is looking for the opposition to supply the ideas.


Eugene Whelan: I said they seem to have run out of ideas because they haven't given us any that are workable so far. There is input both ways. They make suggestions to us and we make suggestions to them.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Minister of Agriculture said that they made suggestions at these meetings. That was my first question. Would he tell the House what those suggestions were?


Eugene Whelan: We have agreed with these people that everything would be in camera until the meetings are over.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: A secret anti-inflation policy!


PUBLIC SERVICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of Treasury Board. Since in both the private and the public sector the wage demands workers are making are principally related to the high rate of inflation, has the government abandoned its traditional principle of paying its employees wages and salaries comparable with those paid in the private sector and, if not, why has it rejected the legitimate claim of the general labour and trades group who are asking not even

February 26, 1975
Oral Questions
parity with the private sector but only for 90 per cent of that level?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have stated that we are in favour of a policy of comparability with the private sector. However, we must be careful to compare apples with apples and not with oranges. For instance, we compare government employed plumbers with industry employed plumbers, and not with plumbers working on a temporary basis on construction sites who lack job security and are not eligible for the pension plans offered by the government.


John Edward Broadbent: Is the minister telling the House that the wage proposals put forward on behalf of the government in all the categories of tradesmen in construction meet the traditional test of comparability? Is he saying that what the government is offering meets traditional comparative standards?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there have been arbitrations and settlements over the years. This is nothing new. What we are offering government blue collar workers today is about the same comparison basis we have offered them in similar circumstances over the years.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE RECRUITMENT PROBLEMS IF WAGES NOT COMPARABLE TO THOSE IN PRIVATE SECTOR
John Edward Broadbent: Is the minister aware of a report done by the pay research bureau in the Public Service Staff Relations Board which reaches a conclusion contrary to his own and suggests to the government that if it continues widening the gap between what it pays its employees and what is paid by the private sector, quite apart from the question of equity the federal government might well encounter recruitment problems of a serious nature?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have been talking with a lot of members of parliament who would like some of their people to work for the government. I am not afraid we shall be short of labour in the next few years, because we treat our employees very well.


AIRPORTS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Like the Leader of the Opposition, I wish the right hon. Prime Minister a good trip to Europe. May it be profitable to Canada on the international scene and especially to our Canadian economy. I am sure I speak for all hon. members

when I say that we are not ashamed of our Prime Minister when he goes abroad.
I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport. We have all heard that he has resigned as leader of the Quebec wing of the Liberal party. He has fairly often done good work with his students and I trust the new incumbent will be able to instill somewhat more seriousness into them.
Will the resignation of the minister allow him to devote a little more time to the solution of the serious problems of the Rouyn and Val-d'Or airports?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since I heard that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi will seek the leadership of his party, and since I know he stands a good chance of being elected, I did not feel it necessary to have as strong an organization as we had in the past in the province of Quebec.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Speak right up George.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, obviously the natives are again restless. They feel that the lion is moving in for the kill. As figures released yesterday by Statistics Canada show that real domestic product has been falling steadily for the past three quarters, thereby establishing this country firmly in a recession, I should like to ask whether that group of outside economists, with which the Prime Minister has surrounded himself, and who have been working for him for the past few months, have come forward with any concrete suggestions to restore the pace of the economy to a satisfactory level and, if so, could the Prime Minister very briefly mention those suggestions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Then I take it, Mr. Speaker, that these very high priced economists who have been on the public payroll for several months now are taking no interest in the country's number one problem. I would ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the only task which has been allotted them by the Prime Minister is to pass judgment on the policies put forward by the Minister of Finance and his department?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, although the opposition would need some help on that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 26, 1975


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Transport aware of the statement attributed to the vice-chairman, Mr. Beaudet, of the National Harbours Board to members of the Halifax branch of the Shipping Federation of Canada after or during a meeting held in Montreal, to the effect that these responsible corporate citizens were warned not to discuss the proposed shed rental policy about to be imposed on the port of Halifax-Dartmouth on May 1 with members of the public or members of parliament and, if so, is this particular style of coercion and irresponsible conduct on the part of senior public servants acceptable to the minister?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am worried about the question put by the hon. member but, unfortunately, I am not aware of the facts. Let me check and tomorrow I will indicate exactly what the situation is.


REQUEST FOR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF SHED RENTAL POLICY AT HALIFAX
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in light of recent events, is the minister prepared to order or direct the National Harbours Board to shelve for the time being this particular policy in respect of shed rentals until such time as the Halifax port authority is given expanded authority, as has been done in Montreal and Vancouver and, if so, would the minister assure the House that the revamped Halifax port authority will be given a veto power over the imposition of such facile and discriminatory policies aimed allegedly, and again I quote from Mr. Beaudet, "equalizing all ports east of Montreal"?


Jean Marchand: I will answer at the same time tomorrow.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING GOVERNMENT'S VIEW OF RIGHT OF MEMBER TO ACCESS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, ETC.
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the frustrations experienced by many members of parliament in dealing with boards and commissions, as evidenced by my colleague's point of order and others in recent days, I wonder if the right hon. gentleman when he returns from Europe might consider making a statement on motions giving the government's view that it in no way wishes to restrict access by members to boards, commissions and public servants generally? In this way the right hon. gentleman could clear up what is obviously a very frustrating matter to those of us who are trying to do our jobs here.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I missed the point of order the hon. member refers to, but I will gladly look into his theoretical suggestion to see if I can give an adequate reply.


ABORTION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he clarify which statement reflects the government's position on present guidelines governing therapeutic abortion clinics operating in Canadian hospitals, one as expressed in a letter dated August 6, 1970 from the present Minister of Finance in which he wrote:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The second statement expressing government policy was a statement of the present Minister of Justice in October, 1974 as follows:
I advised the appropriate authorities, including therapeutic abortion committees, that the Criminal Code provisions regarding abortion were to be applied strictly: that social and economic considerations were not to be taken into account in determining whether a pregnancy lawfully could be terminated.
Would the Prime Minister indicate which of those statements reflects government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the quotation by the hon. member gives the entire position of the Minister of Justice. He has taken the quite proper position that the Criminal Code should govern this matter, and the Criminal Code refers to health as involving many considerations apart from purely physical ones. This is the way the judges are presumably interpreting the law.


An hon. Member:: Is that the final view?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I also offer the right hon. Prime Minister my best wishes for a very good trip. His important work will certainly help our country.

My question to the right hon. Prime Minister in no way involves the matter of transfer of payments to the provinces or payments under social programs. Since government expenditures for goods and services alone have risen 37 per cent in two years, by the government's own figures, how does the right hon. Prime Minister explain this to the private sector, management and labour, during his consensus talks?

February 26, 1975
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the hon. member for his very statesmanlike wishes to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to his very serious and important question, Mr. Speaker, without admitting the statistics the hon. member has put forward, it is of course a necessity on the part of the government when we meet the private sector to explain and justify the expenditures we embark upon, and to reassure them that the opposition will do its duty in examining the estimates put before it, making a judgment as to whether they are justified. Hopefully, there will be restraint shown by everyone in the House in not putting on more pressure to increase expenditures.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. During these talks has it been brought to that minister's attention that this kind of an increase simply in goods and services is the number one reason in Canada for the kind of domestic inflation we have, and for the crippling of economic expansion?


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct some additional questions to the Minister of Transport arising out of the recent transportation conference in Calgary. In view of the agreement in principle to remove some of the inequities in freight rates, and in view of the fact that increases now as well as future increases in rates will aggravate those inequities, is it the intention of the minister to impose a moratorium or a freeze on all rail express rates until such time as the Calgary agreement is embodied in this legislation?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.


FREIGHT RATES-METHOD OF PROHIBITING FURTHER HORIZONTAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Referring specifically to one of the agreements reached in Calgary that "immediate action will be taken to achieve the goals that have been agreed upon", may I ask the minister when and by what means he intends to prohibit any further horizontal percentage increases in the freight rates?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, by the same means that I use when I ask the railways not to increase certain rates for a certain period.


FREIGHT RATES-METHOD OF REDUCING RATE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN RAW AND FINISHED PRODUCTS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since the minister spoke of the method, could he say when he will use it? Also, in respect of the same agreement to reduce rate differentials between raw and finished products, can the minister tell us when he expects to introduce the necessary legislation, and also what measures he will approve in the meantime to reduce those differentials, particularly with regard to beef and rapeseed products?


Jean Marchand: The
CTC is still in operation and many of those cases can be solved by the commission. As to the rest, of course we will have to introduce legislation, which is what I intend to do. I cannot say exactly at what moment that will be.


RAILWAY LINE ABANDONMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONTINUING FREEZE AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN PROVINCES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport in connection with the matter of rail lines abandonment that is being discussed in western Canada. Can the minister say whether or not Ottawa is prepared to continue the freeze on the approximately 6,200 miles of railway beyond the end of 1975 if it can be demonstrated that further inquiries and further discussions will be needed?


Jean Marchand: We have an agreement on this with the ministers of transport of the western provinces. There is a certain number of miles which are frozen and will be frozen up to the year 2000, if my memory serves me well. Certain lines will be abandoned with the consent of the provinces, and others will be studied in order to find a better way of handling the grain.


Jack Burnett Murta: My final supplementary is on the aspect of the legislation itself. Since there will have to be parliamentary approval for some of the proposals that the minister and the western ministers spoke about, can the minister give us an indication as to when he will introduce the necessary legislation to implement what was implied in the press release, or will this be part of his total transportation policy which he hopes to bring forward in May or June?


Jean Marchand: So far as branch lines are concerned, I do not think we have to await any legislation.


DATE OF DISCUSSION OF POSSIBILITY OF TELEVISING PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council, the government House leader. Now that the other place has undertaken to have some of its committee
February 26, 1975

Oral Questions
proceedings televised, when can we in this House expect	[English]
to discuss televising the proceedings of the House?	ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: If I have not been heard, perhaps I could put my question again.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention to bring before this House a resolution recommending the broadcasting of certain parts or all of its proceedings on television. In the meantime, I have been preparing material that I think is necessary for the proper conduct of the debate as to the necessary changes to the lighting, and so on, in this chamber. As soon as that is completed, it would be my intention to put a resolution on the order paper for that purpose.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
A. Daniel McKenzie: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As members of parliament are receiving complaints from businessmen across Canada who are opposing any legislation which requires bilingual labelling on pre-packaged products, is the minister planning any changes in this legislation and would he meet with the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen to discuss their problems in this regard?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered a similar question asked two weeks ago by a colleague of the hon. member, the hon. member for St. John's East.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I do not know whether the minister has an answer to the following supplementary question. As a number of Canadian business firms are seriously concerned about foreign manufacturers stating that they will not comply with Canada's bilingual labelling regulations and will stop exporting to Canada, can the minister inform the House what action he will be taking to resolve this problem?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question, and I expect to make a statement shortly on the matter.


AVAILABILITY OF TRANSCRIPT OF PRELIMINARY INQUIRY INTO HAMILTON HARBOUR CASE TO FORCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: My question is for the Solicitor General. As recorded at page 3575 of Hansard yesterday, the minister indicated that the transcript of the preliminary inquiry in Hamilton became available to the RCMP in Toronto only a few days ago and was not available to the force in Ottawa. In view of the fact that two Toronto newspapers, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, have had the complete transcripts for many days, the Star since February 19 and the Globe and Mail since February 21, does the minister not now feel that he should request the entire transcript and either read it for himself or have his legal advisers, not the RCMP, prepare a summary for him? In this way he will have as much knowledge about a matter under his jurisdiction as the newspapers apparently have.


William Warren Allmand: It is an
interesting question how the newspapers got it before the RCMP did. I should point out that the RCMP in Toronto requested a copy of the transcript from the Crown prosecutor in Toronto as soon as it became available, which was approximately ten days ago, to the Crown prosecutor in Toronto. Even now the RCMP in Toronto do not have a full transcript, although they obtained parts of it from the Crown prosecutor in Toronto. The RCMP in Ottawa also requested a full copy of the transcript ten days ago, but we have not yet received it. As soon as we receive it, I will take steps to examine all the parts that relate to the question at hand. I might say that there are six volumes of this transcript, a lot of this material being irrelevant to the parts that are being questioned. But as soon as we get it, we will consider that question further.


HARBOURS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am very pleased that the minister will eventually get this evidence.
Since he stopped short yesterday of answering my question fully about members or ministers being implicated in such a way that there could be cause for concern about their role in the Hamilton harbour matter, and later in the day confined his answer to saying merely that there was no evidence at that time to lay further criminal charges, is he making a real distinction between criminal responsibility and political misconduct. If he is making that distinction, will he say so and answer my question more fully?


William Warren Allmand: I have made that distinction, but I will not say anything further at this time. As I pointed out in the House last night, section 467 of the Criminal Code states that we should not make

February 26, 1975
Oral Questions
public the proceedings at a preliminary inquiry, and I intend to respect that provision of the law.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: My question is also directed to the Solicitor General. Has he looked into the possibility that the RCMP did not have the authority, as stated by the Minister of Labour, to make the raid on the minister's office-whether or not it was his campaign office-search it and take certain documents, with consent or without consent? Has he looked into this matter in view of the fact that the RCMP is under his jurisdiction?


William Warren Allmand: I did not
understand the Minister of Labour to have said that last night.


Some hon. Members:: He certainly did.


William Warren Allmand: I will re-examine his words in Hansard. If they are as the hon. member says they are, I will certainly look into it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I could help right now. At page 3535-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has undertaken to examine the words, and if there was another question, perhaps the hon. member would like to put it.


INQUIRY AS TO ISSUANCE OF RECEIPTS FOR DOCUMENTS REMOVED FROM HAMILTON OFFICE OF MINISTER OF LABOUR
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to ask the minister whether he made the statement at page 3535 of Hansard. Can the minister now say frankly whether he had enough presence of mind at that time when the RCMP came in without authority to demand copies of the documentation which justified the raid and whether he received receipts from them at that time covering any files, documents or any material which they removed from his office.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the precise date, but subsequently I received documentation, copies of which the RCMP may or may not have kept at their headquarters, wherever that might be.


PURPOSE OF SEARCH OF HAMILTON OFFICE OF MINISTER OF LABOUR
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the minister will confirm that the RCMP raid during the week of May 27, 1974, with or without authority, was relating in some respects to the alleged impropriety and possible fraudulent dealings with reference to the Hamil-

ton Harbour Commission. Was it relating to that commission?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point was raised yesterday about the propriety of questions touching the minister's responsibility as a minister of the Crown, which is the subject for which he is responsible in the House of Commons. I indicated then that questions which were posed yesterday which were brought under objection were not objectionable because they did not contain insinuations against the conduct of the minister in that way. Obviously, if questions are to raise that kind of insinuation, they carry with them a much different character than simply a question in the question period. I indicated at that time that I found no such insinuation but that when I did, I would indicate that I thought the question improper, and I must confess that I find that insinuation in the last question of the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, I am not suggesting for one moment by the question-and possibly it was my fault in the way I phrased my question-that there was any impropriety. However, a certain raid was made on the minister's office, and it was in reference to either some impropriety within the Hamilton Harbour Commission itself or something illegal, otherwise the RCMP would not be in the office. My real question is: was the raid made to seek documents in reference to the impropriety or illegalities connected with other people; nothing to do with the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: In that sense the question would appear to be proper.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question is absurd.


An hon. Member:: How would he know?


John Carr Munro: I believe that would be a matter for the Solicitor General to answer. I cannot determine what is in the mind of someone else.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is very intimately related to these matters, but it is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that there have been ministerial statements attributed to the minister outside the House that the final payment under a $21 million dredging contract to the J. P. Porter Company Limited, the McNamara Company, (marine division), and Marine Industries Limited, all, I believe, of Montreal, on the lies d'Orleans or north traverse project in the St. Lawrence Seaway has been held up by the minister, would the minister confirm in the House that this has been help up and tell us why it has been held up.


Jean Marchand: It has
been held up, Mr. Speaker.
February 26, 1975


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I did not hear the minister.


Jean Marchand: The answer is yes,


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question was why has it been held up?


Jean Marchand: It has been held up on the advice of the Department of Justice.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My
final question is to the Solicitor General, because I gather the RCMP has been seized of this matter at least since June of 1973, and the investigation has been taking place since that time. Would the Solicitor General inform us if the investigation has to his knowledge been completed and if charges or prosecutions are now pending.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the investigation is still under way, and the RCMP is not ready at this time to lay charges or prosecute.



REASON FOR WITHHOLDING PAYMENT TO CERTAIN MONTREAL COMPANIES FOR DREDGING ST. LAWRENCE RIVER

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I wonder if the Solicitor General could advise whether in fact one of the reasons for the non-payment of the $21 million contract is that the government is waiting for the disposition of court proceedings in Hamilton.


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


Jean Marchand: I must say that we should not deal with this matter. It is sub judice because the department is being sued to get this money.



PROTEST AGAINST HIRING TEENAGERS TO PROFESSIONAL

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Does the minister intend to intervene once more in the current dispute between the Junior Hockey League and the Professional Hockey League about players who are hired at 18; has he taken or does he intend to take any steps to oppose the hiring of Toronto Toros' Mark Napier, aged 18?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the two professional leagues involved and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association have agreed on the content of the new contract signed between these leagues and the association. As for measures adopted by individual members of such and such a league, it is a matter that comes under the responsibility of the leagues involved.



FISHERIES


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the problems Canada is now encountering in completing some kind of agreement on U.S. interception of the 1975 salmon catch on the west coast, and in view of the likelihood that without a change in the U.S. position there will not be an agreement in 1975, would the minister advise the House what plans his department now has to protect Canadian salmon stock from excessive U.S. interception this year?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, while recognizing that this problem is a long lasting one and a difficult one, I am not ready to arrive at conclusions which are as pessimistic as the hon. member indicated. There are meetings going on today in the Canadian group, and I will await the outcome of that.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the reluctance of the United States to come to some agreement even on the present Canadian bargaining position, would the minister advise if it is his intention to withdraw from those negotiations and return to the principles agreed to in May of 1971 in which there would be an equality of interception of the total catch on the west coast rather than the present Canadian position? Also would the minister advise if he will seek the help of the Secretary of State for External Affairs so that we can put some pressure in to this bargaining situation and arrive at some solution?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, those are suggestions which I will undertake to consider very carefully.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The question is not about the Pickering airport but in reference to an area where a new airport is both required and desired. Now that he has lightened his packsack of problems, will the minister galvanize himself and his department and have construction begin on the already long delayed international airport at Charlottetown?
3600

February 26, 1975
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE



SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF TIME LIMIT FOR COLLECTION OF SALES TAX-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Because of the failure of the Post Office to deliver the mail, will the government extend the time limit for federal sales tax payments by business establishments until postal service is restored, and if not, why not?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Excise Tax Act requires payment of those taxes to be collected by the end of the month. I would ask businesses which are holding sales tax to use their best efforts to remit the sales tax. Obviously, if they are unable to do so we will examine those cases and waive the penalties as provided under the law.



ABORTION


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the subject of abortion which was opened by the hon. member for Provencher, and which I think requires a more precise answer. May I ask the Minister of Justice if he will unequivocally state the criteria for abortion to be used by therapeutic abortion committees in Canada in considering the health of a mother-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must surely realize that both in terms of questions and general policy in terms of seeking a legal opinion this question is clearly out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot think of any way of allowing the hon. member a supplementary to a question which I have refused.


Douglas Roche: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not claim to be expert in the rules of the House, but I think the people of Canada deserve a precise answer. If allowed to do so, I would try to form my question to elicit a precise answer on the matter of admissibility of abortion which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. I will rephrase my question if you will permit me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may try, but if it seeks the same opinion it is going to be met with the same result.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Because the abortion rate in the three richest provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta, is the

highest in the nation by far, which indicates that abortions are being done for social as distinct from health reasons, what is the minister doing to reduce this needless escalation of abortion which is a continuing violation of the civil rights of the unborn child?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it should be perfectly clear to the hon. member and all hon. members that enforcement of the Criminal Code is in the hands of the provincial Attorneys General. Under the law which this House adopted several years ago certain specific grounds relating to the health and life of the mother are set out as the basis upon which an abortion committee can operate. Certainly, it is up to the provincial Attorneys General to see to it that the law in all its terms is upheld in accordance with the wishes of parliament.



CONTINGENCY PLANS TO ENSURE EXPORT MOVEMENT IN VIEW OF PUBLIC SERVICE STRIKE

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that there are approximately 14,000 boxcars locked in the prairies because of the current public service strike and, because there are about 28 ships now waiting in Vancouver harbour with escalating demurrage charges being calculated on a daily basis, would the minister indicate to the House whether he has formulated any contingency plan for the movement of this export grain in an effort to ensure that Canada's international reputation as a grain supplier is not subject to further humiliation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a number of plans are being looked at, both in connection with the immediate period and also in connection with an attempt to catch up as quickly as possible when conditions return to normal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) put several questions to the Solicitor General with respect to the $21 million dredging contract. I followed with a question to the Solicitor General asking whether one of the reasons for non-payment was the government awaiting the disposition of court proceedings in Hamilton. If I recall correctly, the minister said no, he did not think so, but he was going to check into it. Subsequently the Minister of Transport stepped in and indicated that this matter is being dealt with by the courts. This led me to believe that perhaps the Solicitor General will not be looking into this matter. He has already answered, but now he wants to check it out. I am trying to determine whether the Solicitor General will not proceed because he has already answered the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Solicitor General has given an undertaking that he will check the facts and give an answer. I presume he will do so.
February 26, 1975


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for waiting so long to raise this point but it deals with a correction to Hansard of yesterday. This was brought to my attention at the beginning of the question period today, but the Minister of Labour was not in his seat at the time and I thought it better to wait until he was. When the question period started I did not want to interrupt. My point deals with a question I put yesterday. I had some difficulty in posing the question but I thought I got the answer from the Minister of Labour yesterday. That answer was no. The minister's answer, which I thought was no, does not appear in the Hansard of yesterday, however. I would draw Your Honour's attention to page 3537 of Hansard. The minister's answer does not appear. I may have been mistaken, Mr. Speaker, but I thought he said "no". If he did say no, I would like the correction to be made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for North-umberland-Durham is quite correct. I was watching the minister very closely for his answer and his answer to the final supplementary was clearly no. If Hansard did not record that it should have.
[Editor's Note: See page 3537 for correction.]


James Aloysius McGrath: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) has tried on at least 30 occasions today to get the floor.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 25, consideration in committee of Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carle-ton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the House rose last night clause 4 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 4.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, despite the reluctance of the government to vote yesterday and the amusement of last night, I think the discussion produced some very new and interesting facts. One of the things that came out of that discussion was the fact that Syncrude was set up in a way totally different from any other company. I think it is fair to say that it was set up through the participation of the provincial and federal governments and, I presume, on the basis of our demonstrated need for oil in the east. Because Syncrude would be coming on stream to alleviate the developing shortage, the government used extraordinary methods to establish it, even taking equity in the company.
Although we passed a law, which I presume will be back dated, not to allow tax exemptions for royalties, we are making an exception in the case of Syncrude. If we do this, by a private bill or under the Financial Administra-
Income Tax
tion Act, we will establish a precedent. If the reason for doing it is so Syncrude can develop in the national interest, then I think this clause which would exempt Syncrude from the provisions of the act should not be included unless it be extended to cover companies such as Shell Imperial, Gulf and others that have indicated a desire to participate in the development of other segments of the tar sands.
Considering that the tar sands contain probably the largest known oil reserve in the world, and considering that our oil needs will be vastly greater in the 1980's and 1990's, why should the government limit its concession to Syncrude? Why not give concessions to other companies as well? I think the minister could do this easily by amending the bill before the committee. If he does not so amend the bill, every company which will want to explore and develop the tar sands will lobby in this House, until more concessions are granted. In any event, concessions granted through use of the Financial Administration Act lead to inequalities.
Surely we are not saying that the government is interested in seeing only Syncrude develop the tar sands. Other companies, perhaps privately owned, will also want to take part in tar sands development. They will exert pressure. Therefore, will the minister not consider amending the bill in order to provide for orderly development? I do not think the Financial Administration Act is an adequate mechanism for controlling development. I think the minister knows that members of parliament oppose the use of the Financial Administration Act for the accomplishment of purposes which can be achieved by other legislation.
Clearly, other companies in this country will want to develop the tar sands. They, too, will ask for Syncrude-type exemptions. Surely the minister is not saying, as I said just now, that only Syncrude should develop tar sands, that other entrepreneurs should not. If that is what he says, he has become a socialist. As surely as I stand here, the government will eventually pay for all Syncrude development, even before this parliament expires. The government will take over the operation because oil companies will find that such development without government help is not feasible.
If we are not to depend on outside suppliers of oil we shall need to bring on stream, by the year 2,000, at least eight additional tar sands plants. Such development will not be possible unless other companies are given Syncrude-type concessions. This can only be done through legislation. If the minister does not amend the bill, companies will seek exemptions through the introduction of private members' bills, or through use of the Financial Administration Act.
I think most agree that the Financial Administration Act is not the proper vehicle for the granting of such exemptions, and everyone knows how difficult it is to secure passage of a private members' bill. Further, there will not be harmony in the industry if part of it operates under one tax structure, and another part under a vertical partnership, joint venture, or whatever you may call it- what do you call it?
28996 -23V2

February 26, 1975
Income Tax


John Napier Turner: Don't worry about any prompting. Make up your own speech.


William Arnold Peters: The English language is developing week by week. The new term is "joint venture". Unless the bill is amended the minister will be subjected to tremendous pressures. I remember, when the Conservative government introduced amendments affecting pensions, INCO representatives came to Ottawa, exerted pressure, and induced the government to change those provisions. Unless the exemption provisions of this bill are changed, INCO and other similar companies in this country will ask for Syncrude-type concessions.
That procedure will be untidy, and unwieldy. At least eight other companies will seek exemptions. No reasonable person will stand for this sort of inequality in the tax structure. Consequently, the government will be subject to immense pressure. Judging from what has happened in the past, the government will not withstand the pressure-former governments have not withstood it-and grant exemptions to those powerful enough to demand them. Therefore, as the minister knows the limitations of the Financial Administration Act and the difficulties of securing passage of a private member's bill, he should amend the bill in the way I have suggested. If he does not the government will be subject to pressures from companies like INCO, Falconbridge and others involved in exploration, which can come to Ottawa with funds at election time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can deal the point raised by the hon. member for Timis-kaming. He dealt with some matters mentioned by his colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. First, the arrangement with Syncrude is a joint venture. "Joint venture" is a construction or industrial term for a partnership. There is nothing new about it. A joint venture, as the hon. member's legal advisor, the hon. member for Broadview, knows, is a common term in the construction industry, in which companies bind themselves together for a particular project to which they dedicate a certain percentage of capital in return for a certain percentage of the profit, or agree to bear a certain proportion of the loss. But they remain separate units, just as members of a law firm remain separate individuals, and share profits or bear losses, as the case may be.


An hon. Member:: Since when do lawyers lose?


John Napier Turner: I can say, on behalf of a number of lawyers in the House of Commons, that this has happened in the last 10 or 12 years.


An hon. Member:: You mean, lawyers have lost?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Let me say, in response to the laughter from the NDP side of the House, that some of the most successful practitioners happen to be sitting on that side of the House.
Let us get down to cases. First, the Syncrude joint venture and the arrangement that is reflected in the taxation situation are not retroactive. When the minister of finance of Alberta approached me, he said "Look, we got

this joint venture setup with four companies getting together. Alberta will have 40 per cent of the deal. We want to ensure the tax arrangement under which we are setting it up has some reasonable permanence so we all know what we are doing. We in Alberta consider this a very important enterprise. Would you give us this undertaking?" I said fair ball, and I did.
I am talking about the fact that the royalty deductibility in the sense of not attributing to the four companies the 40 per cent of the income that goes to the province of Alberta, as one would under a fair market value sort of proposition, under the present arrangement applies to whatever share of the income that now goes to Ontario or the federal government. It will not be attributable to the private sector.
There is nothing unusual in that insofar as partnership law is concerned because one is only taxed on one's percentage. Because of the non-deductibility features and the fact we extended it to the fair market value rule, we have to make it an exception under this bill. This is not a retroactive deal. It is an arrangement I made on behalf of the government of Canada, at the request of the province of Alberta, with the four partners concerned. It is not an under the table deal. It is right out here on the floor of the House of Commons. It is confirmed in writing by me to the partners concerned.
I do not like the sometimes under the table operations of the Financial Administration Act in terms of its remission authority any more than the hon. member. According to the Statutory Instruments Act, any order in council under the Financial Administration Act would have to be publicly examined by the statutory instruments committee. That will be the case. The hon. member asks why I, as Minister of Finance, do not put myself in a position where I can resist similar pressure by putting in an amendment to this bill. He has got an arguable point. I do not minimize it. I tried to think this through the way he has. What I need now is a bit of flexibility until we see what the final contractual relationship is as the Syncrude project develops.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about future Syncrude type deals. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said we would have to look at them on their merits. It may be that, as we see the Syncrude or tar sands development mature, we will have to come back to the House in a more definitive way. I concede that. At the moment I need the flexibility of the Financial Administration Act, subject to its publication by an order in council, reviewable by the House, until I see how the tar sands operation in its entirety develops. I repeat that it may be we will have to come back in a more definitive way before the House. I concede the force of the hon. member's argument. However, I ask him to put himself in my position at the moment because we are in a pioneer venture. We do not really know how it will mature in legal, financial or taxation terms.


William Arnold Peters: I am not too clear. In the joint venture is there a difference between how the royalty applies to the government percentages as against the company? For
February 26, 1975

example, if one of the companies has 20 per cent, is the royalty calculated only on the 20 per cent and the total added up to 70 per cent because the governments have 30 per cent? Do I gather there would not be any royalty on the government 30 per cent, that the other percentage would only be on the partners which are in a position to depreciate?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In the original Syncrude arrangement, to which later partners were added, Ontario and the federal government, that really does not enter into the taxation scheme. First, Alberta takes 50 per cent off the top. Then, for their equity participation, they get 40 per cent. The remaining 60 belongs to the four partners, now three partners, whatever it is. The partners will only be taxed on that 60 per cent, depending on their participation. That is all.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think I have this, Mr. Chairman, but I am not sure. Let me put it another way. For example, if you take their share of the product and one of the private companies receives as its share 10 per cent of the product, will clause 4 apply to that 10 per cent in that any royalty they pay on that to the province of Alberta cannot be deducted as an expense?


John Napier Turner: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman. What happens in the joint venture is that Alberta gets the first 50 per cent. It is against that 50 per cent that there is no deductibility of royalty or the equivalent of a royalty. With regard to the remaining shares, suppose Imperial Oil gets 15 per cent, and that is not the accurate figure, but suppose they elect to take it in oil, there is no further royalty paid on it because Alberta already has its 50 per cent. The non-deductibility feature is really to exempt Imperial Oil from paying its share of the non-deductibility feature of the 50 per cent already paid to Alberta. That is the only feature of it. The remaining profits have nothing to do with royalty because Alberta has taken its share, not by royalty but by percentage of the deal.


Mr. Symes:: I would like further clarification. We were talking about the Syncrude deal which was 70 per cent ownership by the private oil companies, 15 per cent by the government of Canada, 10 per cent by the government of Alberta and 5 per cent by the government of Ontario. The minister is talking about Alberta having the first 50 per cent. Is this 70 per cent, 15, 10 and 5 per cent, to apply to the other 50 per cent? I would like that clarification.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the deal is that Alberta gets 50 per cent off the top before the profit shares apply.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to enter this debate at this late stage in order to hold up the bill. I am as interested as other members on this side in getting it through as quickly as possible, it having been discussed rather thoroughly.
In connection with the saving of energy resources that we are going to such expense to develop, has the minister considered lowering the 15 per cent import duty on small imported cars? I ask this for two reasons. First, imported cars generally are the greatest gas savers on our roads.
Income Tax
Second, it is the highest import duty today in the industrial world of cars.
In Canada, there are 1,200 small businesses involved in this. In my own constituency of Victoria, there are over 400 people employed in selling or servicing small imported cars. These people are being driven to the wall because of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, particularly in comparison with the German mark and the Japanese yen. I therefore ask the minister if he has considered removing this 15 per cent duty? Of course he may have to go another step with the removal of sales tax on domestic small cars. If it is too late in the day for the minister to consider making the change in this bill, would he consider further representations by letter?


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Chairman, an excellent brief and representation have been received in this particular area from the car importers. What we have to do is look down the road if that particular tariff item is removed. Aside from the impact in a positive way, which the hon. member is talking about, on the employees employed by the car importers in Canada, what would be the impact on automobile manufacturers in Canada? The importers are taking the stance that they would give competition to the big three or big four in Canada, and this would not have a detrimental effect on employment. We are not sure that this is in fact the case, but the car importers have made full representations.
I think the hon. member is correct in saying that further representations are being made, and have been made as recently as last week to the department, and I believe an appointment is set up for a meeting during the week of March 3 to look into the matter further.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: As I believe the hon. member realizes, the problem arises from the devaluation of our dollar which means, for instance, that the cost of a Volkswagen has gone up by 30 per cent without there being any corresponding rise in its market value in Germany. I am pleased to hear the matter is being considered. I shall be making further representations myself.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: No!


Reginald Cyril Symes: I should like to make some comments about this situation. We are getting bits of information in dribs and drabs as we discuss taxation of the resource sector in relation to the Syncrude project.
Last night we were treated to the spectacle of the government not having enough members in the committee for a vote to be taken. We saw government supporters standing up and delaying proceedings until there were sufficient Liberal members in the House. They were making all kinds of irrelevant comments.
We have been able to put together, through persistent questioning, a number of facts and to draw some conclusions as to just what is happening in this whole Syncrude project, or should I say Syncrude sell-out. We have learned that the government is putting up money not only by way of direct grants in return for equity holdings. Through the

February 26, 1975
Income Tax
admission of the Minister of Finance last night we discover that during the tax regime that applies to the oil company partners in Syncrude, the public in the end will be paying most of the cost of this project through tax concessions and write-offs in return for only 30 per cent of the action.
Let me review what we have discovered. The project is to cost $2 billion. There has been a fantastic escalation in the price from around $800 million to $1.2 billion to $2 billion, and there is some suspicion it may go even higher. Of that $2 billion we learn that $600 million will be put up by the three governments involved: $300 million by the federal government, $200 million by the Government of Alberta and $100 million by Ontario. That is $600 million for 30 per cent ownership of Syncrude.
In addition, the government of Alberta is putting up another $200 million in loans to the oil companies in the Syncrude project and providing $600 million toward the construction of a power plant and a pipeline, besides a further $230 million for building roads and supplying town services. The federal government gave a commitment as well that it would assume 15 per cent of the cost of the project or, more important, of any future cost escalation. Already we find that the cost estimate has risen by some $200 million since the government committed itself in principle to becoming a partner in the Syncrude project.
Having put up $600 million in direct financing of the Syncrude project, the governments concerned have been telling the people that the rest of the Syncrude partners will be putting up the remaining $1.4 billion in return for 70 per cent ownership. But last night we learned that because of the tax regime applicable to the Syncrude project the oil companies will not, in fact, be putting up $1.4 billion. It will be the public. Mr. Chairman, the public will be financing the bulk of the cost. Let me explain.
We learned last night that Syncrude will be able to deduct the royalties paid to the province from any income which is liable to federal taxation. This will mean a tax saving of vast sums of money. No other oil company in Canada now has the privilege of being able to deduct the royalties paid to the provinces.
The second concession on tax allowance is that the Syncrude oil company partners will be able to claim depletion allowances in respect to the oil taken out of the oil sands. The allowance will have to be earned and it will be up to 25 per cent of production costs. We also know that the Syncrude partners will be able to write off against their tax 30 per cent of the cost of building the mining plant to get oil out of the sands. Again this is worth vast amounts of money to the companies.
The fourth, and perhaps the most important aspect of the tax concessions affecting Syncrude, is that since it is a joint venture any investment can be written off against taxable income gained through other operations. The oil companies, which are making profits through selling gasoline or home heating fuel from conventional reserves, can use their profits in that area for tax concession purposes as a means of offsetting the cost of the Syncrude project. The significance of this aspect of the deal is staggering because it means that their investment of $1.4 billion in Syncrude can be written off against profits on other operations carried out by the oil companies. This is why I say

that in the end the public will be financing all the costs of the Syncrude project, not the private companies.
The other concession going to the other oil company partners is that they will be able to charge world prices for the tar sands oil.
We have one oil sands plant already in production, namely, the Great Canadian Oil Sands Plant. It is making a profit now on oil that is selling at $6.50 a barrel. The oil barons of the Syncrude deal twisted the government's arm to get the concession of not charging $6.50 per barrel but being allowed to charge anywhere from $13 to $15, that is to say, the world price. One can just imagine the fantastic kind of profits that Imperial, Gulf and Cities Service will be making under that pricing regime, especially in light of the tax concessions I have described.
It is interesting to note that the Foster economic consultants' report on Syncrude operating costs prior to this sudden escalation of the price of oil estimated that over the 25-year life of the project the operating costs would total $5.6 billion, or $5.45 a barrel. Syncrude will be getting anywhere from $13 to $15 a barrel for this oil.
We should also remember that the Syncrude oil is a synthetic oil, that is to say, it is in a semi-refined state and therefore its real value is greater than the value of the average crude since it is in a higher processed state. That raises the question as to whether Syncrude really needs the world price for its oil in order to make a profit. I maintain that they have misrepresented the real value of the oil, and have exaggerated the costs in order to get the commitment from this government to be able to charge the world price.
I should like to elaborate on how this has been allowed to take place by using, as a comparison, the procedure of the Great Canadian Oil Sands Company that is already in production in the oil sands. Let me refer to an article by Joseph Yanchula in the "Canadian Forum" of December, 1974. The article is headed "The Politics of Petroleum". He outlines the very interesting accounting procedure that Great Canadian Oil Sands used to fool the government as to the real value of that oil the company was producing, and its actual profit picture. I quote from the article as follows:
Undoubtedly the defence for the giveaway of the tar sands will be the high cost of exploration and the so-called losses of the G.C.O.S. project which were supposed to total $88 million to the end of 1972. During 1972 this company was supposed to have a loss of $680,000. Examination of the 1972 annual report shows an income of $62,284,000 and an operating cost of $48,713,000 which leaves an operating profit of $13,571,000. The loss is manufactured by deducting allowances totalling $14,251,000 for amortization, interest and depreciation. Corporate accounting is an art invented to demonstrate how it is possible to lose money and still grow rich.
There is a growing suspicion that G.C.O.S. profits are actually far greater and that they are being deliberately transferred to Sun Oil Co., the parent corporation, by underpricing the synthetic crude. G.C.O.S. claims to produce three liquids which are blended together before being shipped to Edmonton.
As a result the actual oil is of higher value than stated by the company. So we see that when the minister talks about real market value he certainly has not been applying that to the existing oil sands company, Great Canadi-

an Oil Sands, because it has been able to declare a loss when it was actually making a profit.
I suspect that the Syncrude partners are using the same kind of mathematics to bamboozle the government, hence the Canadian taxpayer, into giving concessions and higher world prices for the oil that should be set at $6.50 a barrel rather than $13 to $15. We have been misled by oil companies in the past, as demonstrated by the history of exploration for and exploitation of oil in this country.
The government has been misled by the Syncrude partners in the deal the government committed itself to a few Mondays ago in Winnipeg, and it would seem to me that when it comes to the point where the public of Canada is putting up the vast majority of the funds for the Syncrude project, and in return only retains 30 per cent ownership, we should be putting up all the money and getting all the benefits in terms of ownership. We should move toward complete public ownership of the Syncrude project. I suggest we could do this as we are going to put up the money anyway.
We might as well retain control of the project in order that we can develop these oil reserves, which are much greater than the total reserves in the Middle East, in the interest of Canadian economic needs, rather than that of some foreign multi-national oil company. In this way we could develop this oil at a Canadian price for Canadian consumers so they will not be exploited as a result of artificially high oil prices.
This is why we in the New Democratic Party so firmly oppose this kind of Syncrude sell-out that the Liberal and Conservative parties have supported up to this time. It is up to the Canadian people to make their views known to the government in order to prevent this horrendous sell-out.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on Clause 4, as amended.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to: Yeas, 58; nays, 14.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now proceed to the consideration of clause 7, as amended. Shall clause 7, as amended, carry?
On clause 7, as amended.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Chairman, again on clause 7 I want to say to the committee, and particularly to all the Liberal members who are now leaving to get back to their offices after the vote, that this committee should once again reconsider-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What I will do is to speak to the ones who are staying.
I will ask them to reflect once again, after what happened last evening, on whether or not there is a possibility of having the clauses of this bill that are relevant to resources and royalties delayed until a date after the first ministers' meeting in April. After listening to the long debate last night in the House, I am sure that the Liberal members will be willing now to reconsider their position.
Income Tax
On the basis of goodwill, co-operation and national unity we, on the opposition side of the House, are suggesting that we should delay the proclamation of all the clauses pertaining to royalties and resources until the first ministers' meeting has been held. I know that I have the agreement of hon. members such as the hon. member for Nipissing, who is generally a very co-operative fellow, and who is concerned about development in northern Ontario.
I know that I also have the co-operation of some of the prairie members. I see here the hon. member for London West. I am sure that those hon. members are concerned about the development of this country, particularly the outlying parts of the country, and in order to allow this development to take place we need the co-operation of all the provinces.
It is about time that we went to the provinces in a co-operative spirit instead of going to them with a club. It is about time we said to the provinces, "If we cut into your resource revenue, we will give you a chance to develop in other ways. We will tax you differently and we will give you a chance to process and develop your raw materials".
For these reasons I want to move an amendment to the clause without speaking any longer. I move: that clause 7 of Bill C-49 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after sub-clause (6) the following new sub-clause:
(7) Subsection (1) and subsection (5) of this section shall not come into force and have effect as law except upon proclamation of the governor in council following upon the expiration of the fifteenth day of April, 1975.
In effect that is the same wording as the wording of the clause with which we dealt earlier. I think it is very important that we test the feelings of the committee once again. I am sure that the Liberal members, being as generous as they are, might have reconsidered their position since last evening. They might be much more co-operative now when it is earlier in the day than they were last night when they were caught off guard and embarrassed by the parliamentary process. I am sure that they are now in a much more co-operative frame of mind. That is obvious from the fact that we see so many ministers in the House, including the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
This is my last plea, that in a spirit of goodwill and co-operation we ask the Minister of Finance to delay the proclamation of the clauses of this bill that pertain to resources and royalties until after the first ministers' meeting. I am sure that the hon. member for York-Simcoe and others in the Conservative party and the Social Credit party agree with what I am saying. I think that most Liberals also do so at heart, except if they have in mind future Senate appointments, appointments to the cabinet or appointments to the bench. I think they would be happy if the Minister of Finance were to acquiesce.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: The amendment of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is before the committee. Is there agreement to it?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. members across the way seem to think we are doing this for fun.

February 26, 1975
Income Tax


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shades of last night.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But to us this is not fun. We are trying to make a sincere and genuine effort to persuade members on the government side. Whether or not we succeed is not the point. I want to warn hon. members. I predict that what they are doing strikes at the very foundation of confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If a national government, which has campaigned in three successive elections on the principle of conserving confederation and national unity, proceeds to pass legislation that removes the right of the provinces in an area which the constitution reserves to them is not striking at the foundation of confederation, then I do not know who is.


An hon. Member:: Let's not be provincial.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will not take a back seat to any hon. member-in fact I think I am in the front seat compared to the hon. member who interjected when it comes to being for a strong confederation and a strong central government. It is only the NDP that is accused of wishing to centralize everything. In so far as a strong, national, central government is concerned, I will not take a back seat to any member of this House.
For confederation to function properly there must be consensus, accommodation and mutual agreement. We have had many examples in the last 100 years of matters that have divided us, in most cases, on economic grounds, on grounds of taxation. We have had one region pitted against another region, or all provinces against the federal government. In the present situation, nine of the ten provinces are opposed to what the government is trying to do.
I agree that the federal government must protect the national interest, in the cause of confederation and national unity. It is entitled to a fair share of the revenues. However, this can only be arrived at as a result of agreement on both sides. There has been no accommodation from the government. This is not a one way street. To use this method of disallowing royalties as a deductible expense only in the case of governments and not in the case of private companies-that inconsistency alone should have jarred any fair-minded Liberal because Liberals profess to be reasonable and fair and great democrats.


An hon. Member:: We are.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They all say that our law should be fairly applied, and here they stand up like sheep and support a piece of legislation which openly states that the disallowance of royalties will not apply when it is paid to private companies, but that it will apply when it is paid to a provincial government. How can you have it both ways and call that fair and equitable?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They have wool over their eyes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We do not ask members opposite to vote against their own legislation or against their budget bills. We only ask them to hold off for another couple of months. What is unreasonable about that? I have heard a number of hon. members opposite say that they are reasonable men, and here is their opportunity to prove it.
I want to say to the Minister of Finance that the acceptance of this amendment would not be looked upon by myself or my colleagues as any kind of backing down. We would look upon it as a gesture by the Minister of Finance, and by the government, equivalent to the gesture which has already been made by the premiers of the two oil producing provinces. We would look on it as a piece of statesmanship, and evidence of a genuine desire on the part of the federal government and the Minister of Finance to go further to reach accommodation and mutual agreement with the provinces in the interests of our confederation and national unity.
I want to warn hon. members that this has nothing to do with whether we are Liberal, NDP, Conservative or Credi-tiste, but it has to do with what binds this country together. I just cannot understand the reluctance to do this reasonable thing. I wish hon. members could have agreed to that on clause 4 last night. There is no wish on our part to make this a partisan political matter, but if the legislation is passed as it is, we are left with no choice. This is the time for parliament, the government and the Minister of Finance to demonstrate that willingness to reach accommodation and mutual agreement.
I accept the telegram from Premier Blakeney-which I hope my colleague will hand back to me-and I think the Minister of Finance will as well because he likes and respects that gentleman as much as I do. It indicates that the province of Saskatchewan desires to reach accommodation and agreement. I believe the same is true of Premier Lougheed, and I am certain of the other seven premiers who are opposed to this attempt by the federal government to get what it considers a fair share of these revenues. The government is aware of the desire of the provincial premiers to reach agreement.
Premier Blakeney asks in his telegram:
... I would request that the federal government give consideration to delaying passage of that portion of the income tax bill pertaining to non-deductibility of royalties until after the conference.
He is not demanding that the bill should not pass. He is asking for the delay of the bill until after the conference.
If it is not considered possible to delay the passage of legislation until that time ...
Premier Blakeney further suggests that we:
... consider amending the proposed legislation to provide for the adoption of principles similar to those recognized in the recently-announced Syncrude arrangement.
Surely that can only be arrived at by further discussion. This is a perfectly reasonable request, but what is more important is that it is a way of telling us of a willingness to try to reach agreement and accommodation. Our doing an equivalent amount here does not defeat the legislation, does not defeat the budget and does not rule out what the Minister of Finance wants to do. It only delays it for a couple of months; that is all. Surely that is a reasonable and fair request. If it can be done for oil and gas, it can be
February 26, 1975

done for iron ore in Quebec, hydro electric power in Quebec and Newfoundland, nickel in Ontario, forest products in British Columbia, and gold in Ontario.


William Arnold Peters: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Had the world price for iron ore escalated as it did for oil, I wonder what members of parliament from Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland would have said in this House when the Minister of Finance tried to disallow the royalties on that iron ore being paid to those provincial governments.
Had the world price of asbestos escalated like that of oil,
I wonder how many hon. members from the province of Quebec would have been delighted with the Minister of Finance disallowing royalties paid to the province of Quebec for that asbestos. Had the world price of copper kept escalating, how would British Columbia and Manitoba have felt?
I ask hon. members to think about what they are doing. If hon. members opposite believe and agree with the Minister of Finance that this forever and a day shall only apply to oil and gas, then they really have a fight on their hands. But if they are saying that it will apply to everything, they should think more about confederation, about what the British North America Act says, and about further genuine and sincere effort from all sides to reach accommodation and mutual agreement on this issue because, if they do not, the issue will haunt this parliament and country for years to come. By God, don't do it; but if you insist that it must be done, make another effort first to reach agreement and accommodation. That is the least that can be done.
We must not be guilty of failing to use every possible opportunity and avenue. It is a national concern. It has nothing to do with how good any political party is, or how much better one province or area is than another.
I suppose this measure shocked me almost as much as the government bringing in the War Measures Act. It shocked many thinking people in our country that a national government should use this method.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Liberals don't think.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Even for the sake of argument, if one were to admit that the federal government were right in its fears about what would be happening to the financial structure and tax system in this country, surely this is not the way to do it. This is not the way to put an end to those fears and solve the problems the government thought would be created. Surely this is the wrong way to go about it. Even if the government felt that this was the way to go about it, it has not yet exhausted every possible avenue to solve the differences between the provinces and the federal government, and I will not for one minute suggest that Premier Blakeney and the NDP government of Saskatchewan are 100 per cent right. No one is 100 per cent right on anything.


An hon. Member:: Least of all this government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Surely hon. members opposite do not claim that they are 100 per cent right on everything, or that the Minister of Finance is. Surely he would be preincome Tax
pared to agree for the sake of the country, and not add to the anger, real or imagined, of the people in that part of Canada. The minister should have accepted this amendment last night. This legislation would become law immediately, with just a handful of clauses being delayed for a couple of months.
Members of this parliament and members of the provincial legislatures have worked hard to make this country a success, and generally have succeeded. There are countless examples of leadership at the national and provincial levels in the past 105 years, and here is another opportunity for leadership. I cannot understand why the minister refused it. I do not look upon him as a mean and stubborn man.


An hon. Member:: Just stupid.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is there to lose?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Pride.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is so much to gain, and surely there is no harm in trying again. Obviously Premier Blakeney and Premier Lougheed want to keep on trying, so why does the Minister of Finance not try to reach that mutual understanding and agreement that are necessary if federation is to succeed? Instead he undermines and betrays our confederation and nationhood. I wonder what he would say if this oil and gas belonged to Ontario and Quebec.
I hope some other hon. members will speak after me so that the minister will have a few more minutes to think about this.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A couple of days.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I know that I sometimes appear to hon. members to be frivolous, but I have never been more serious as a member of parliament than I am at this moment. I plead with all members, in the interests of our country and this parliament, to accept the amendment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, some questions are still outstanding concerning clause 7, and perhaps the minister could deal with them before we have a division on the proposed amendment. I would refer the minister to page 3234 of Hansard where, in speaking on clause 7 as it refers to real estate, I asked the minister to consider my remarks and those of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and to advise if he could amend the legislation to ensure that small builders would not be unduly hurt by the provision. If he did not see fit to do this, I also asked if he would explain his position more fully to this committee.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated to the committee that there is no way we can distinguish between builders, for the purposes of this legislation, in terms of volume or size. I think the hon. member for Broadview dealt with it conclusively, following what I said. I have nothing to add to the full explanation given when the clause was introduced.
3608

February 26, 1975
Income Tax


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I think if the minister were candid he would admit that the government does not wish to make the amendment to help the builder who is not a speculator. These people have made representations to the government on the grounds that they are going to be severely handicapped by the minister's actions.
I should like to touch on something that I have brought up twice before. On both occasions the minister chose not to be candid with the House. On February 10 he said that certain figures I used in this debate were misleading, that they were like comparing apples and oranges. On two occasions I have asked him to point out the discrepancy. He has already admitted that he perhaps misled the House with regard to one set of figures, but he has not commented on the more glaring errors he put on the record of Hansard tor February 10 to which I have referred.
The last time I raised this with the minister was at page 3199 of Hansard, when I again asked the minister if he would correct the mistake that he had put on the record concerning the figures he referred to, but he chose to take no action. Since that time the minister has told me that he would read my remarks and his own, and would hopefully make a further comment. Again I ask the minister for the third time if he is prepared to make any further comment on the matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have reread the remarks and I have no further comment to make.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, this is something I do not understand about the working of parliament. Here we have a minister-he is winking now because he thinks it is a joke-who, according to Hansard, has misled this House. Three times in a row he has had the nerve to stand up and say that he has no further comment to make, that he does not wish to set the record straight.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I do not understand how the government can expect to have the respect of this House and the public when the Minister of Finance misleads the House as he is doing.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


B. Keith Penner: The question is on the amendment to clause 7 proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.
Amendment (Mr. Nystrom) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 49.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I regret having to stand up on a question of privilege arising out of the vote taken just now. To my knowledge at least one member voted who was not inside the curtain when Your Honour called the vote. I believe, from what my colleagues tell me, that others did the same. I think such conduct is reprehensible. I note that when a person on our side entered, those on the

other side were quick to note his coming in. He obliged, went out and did not take part in the vote. We point out that we saw some members enter. I am looking at the hon. member I have in mind. I was sorry to see him doing that. My colleagues saw others do the same. I think such conduct is reprehensible and unworthy of the dignity of this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: I thank the hon. member for raising the point he just raised. All hon. members, of course, will be aware of the provisions of Standing Order 12(2), which reads:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.


Mr. Paproski:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think hon. members should rise and declare themselves if they were not in the chamber when the vote was called. I think those two hon. members ought not to be included as taking part in the vote.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Be honest, stand up.


B. Keith Penner: The question is on clause 7, as amended.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to: Yeas, 73; nays, 25.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: The question now is on the amendment to clause 35.
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 37.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment to clause 37 carry?


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Chairman, I will not take up the time of the committee but want to add one comment on the matter of deductibility of capital depreciation and other development expenses, as this question relates to Canada's proven recoverable reserves of petroleum. I think all recognize that we face a potentially serious shortage of petroleum production in Canada. In the near future we may become net importers. This necessitates our increasing the volume of proven recoverable reserves. One of the most promising ways of increasing proven recoverable reserves quickly is by using enhanced recovery techniques in existing reservoirs. These involve development expenses in connection with the drilling of extra wells and the use of water flooding and miscible flooding techniques.
The minister must recognize that changes in taxation policy affecting development expenses will have an impact on the promotion of enhanced recovery methods which need to be adopted to increase our proven recoverable reserves. I hope the minister will consider allowing the deferment of these expenses until costs are recovered because, in view of what could happen, it would be a shame if government action were to compound an already serious situation to do with security of supply. I therefore hope the government will be flexible and consider the possibility of eliminating some taxes, or amending certain
February 26, 1975

tax provisions. As we shall need more oil for Canada's future use, incentives should be provided so that companies will spend money on enhanced recovery methods and recover oil more efficiently from those reserves already discovered. Additional money needs to be spent on reservoirs which have been discovered if extra oil is to be available for Canada's use.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, clause 37 is the fair market value clause, and it is immensely important to the provinces. I should like the minister to clarify the intent of this clause. I understand that the clause works this way: if an operator sells oil, gas or minerals to the Crown, his product will be deemed to have been sold at fair market value. For example, if the operator sells oil or gas to the Crown for $1 per barrel and the Crown authorities resell the product for $11 per barrel, the fair market value of that product will be deemed to be $11 per barrel. This means the resource company will be taxed on that $11, the price it is sold to the retailer, rather than the price at which it is sold to the Crown corporation.
The real object of this amendment is to prevent a Crown corporation, or an agency such as the province, from nationalizing any sector of the resource industry in that province or forcing the resource industry to sell to the Crown at a low price.
The effect of the amendment is to put a tax squeeze on the resource operator from whom the resources are bought by forcing him to declare, for tax purposes, the higher price at which the Crown resells the resource. In other words, if a provincial government, duly elected by the people of a province, wants to set up a marketing system and get a higher return for its own natural resources, it will tell an oil company that it may get the oil out of the ground, but the province will determine at what price the oil company sells the oil to the provincial marketing agency, and the government will decide at what price it will resell the oil to the public or for export markets.
By this clause the government is using the tax system in effect to double tax the resource company to the point of putting it out of business in order to thwart any attempt by a province to set up a marketing agency. If a company is selling the oil for $1 a barrel to the marketing agency and the marketing agency is selling it for $11 a barrel, the company will be taxed as though it received $11 for its oil rather than only $1. This is an infringement on the right of a province to decide what the economic rent will be for its natural resource. As I say, a government democratically elected within a province should have the right to decide at what price its natural resource will be sold.
I do not see any reason for the federal government assuming this method of punitive taxation as an attempt to prevent the Crown corporations or provinces from nationalizing their resource industry. I would like the minister to state whether I am correct in saying that the real object of this amendment is to prevent a Crown corporation from nationalizing any sector of its resource industry.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Chairman.
Income Tax


Reginald Cyril Symes: I would like the minister to explain the rationale behind this, and why he thinks my interpretation is wrong.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the clause is to ensure that not only a royalty is not deductible, but any disguised royalty. As I explained on several occasions to the House, the federal government was concerned that the royalty was no longer a flat payment against production or volume-against a gallon, a ton, an ounce-but was in effect a disguised tax escalating against profit or price. There are all sorts of mechanical vehicles by which a province can levy its economic rent or impose its tax. A royalty is one. The difference in price that a marketing agency pays a producer and on sales to the consumer is another.
The purpose of this clause is to attach a value against which an imputed royalty is set for purposes of nondeductibility in the case of marketing agencies and in the case of joint ventures between a province and private corporations. That is all it does. It in no way pre-supposes or presumes upon a province as to how it wants to impose that tax or royalty. It just ensures, by whatever method it does, that the market value is treated evenly across the board. That is the only purpose of this clause.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, I find two things wrong with the minister's reasoning. First the minister as a federal agency is setting himself up as judge and jury as to what is a flat rate, a fluctuating royalty or a tax rate. In other words, because the minister is not satisfied with the royalty the province is charging, he can redefine it as not being a royalty, but merely a form of tax. He is taking an arbitrary decision from the point of view of the Minister of Finance. This is an outright attack on one of the fundamental concepts of our constitution, namely, that resources belong to the province and the province has the legitimate right to get whatever economic rent seems justifiable. I object to the minister being the arbitrary judge of what he says is a flat royalty as opposed to a disguised kind of tax.
The minister objects to the provinces getting more income from this method of taxation. I remind the minister he has the power through federal income tax to raise federal revenues. For decades the federal government taxed the resource industry by means of income tax at a ridiculously low rate. If the federal minister now wants to make up that lack of taxation revenue or that lack of foresight, he has a method to do that. That is through the federal income tax legislation. That would be a fair way of doing it.
The whole point that we in the opposition have been objecting to is the federal government's arbitrary decision making with respect to taxation policy. The federal government is arbitrarily infringing upon an area of resource management which, by the terms of our constitution, should be left in the hands of the provinces. This is why we want these clauses of the bill to be delayed until the first ministers' conference in April. In a spirit of co-operation and fair play and upholding the principles of confederation, this whole matter could be discussed and some accommodation reached between the federal government
3610

February 26, 1975
Income Tax
and the provinces instead of this arbitrary and unfair action being taken.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I am always about to forgo asking any questions until I hear the Liberal backbenchers heckling. We can facilitate the passage of this bill if the committee will only listen for a moment or two. I wish to ask the minister one or two questions. I think I know the answers. However, I want to be very clear and to have this on the record.
In Saskatchewan there is the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. It is a publicly owned utility that provides electricity to the people of Saskatchewan. It purchases gas at the lowest possible price and sells to the consumers in the province at the lowest possible price. It is trying to give a service to the people of Saskatchewan.
Is there any way the minister can interpret this legislation to say that the Saskatchewan Power Corporation is not selling gas to the Saskatchewan consumer at a high enough price, or is not selling it at the fair market value? It buys the gas at low cost and sells it to Saskatchewan consumers at low cost. That might be below the fair market value on the free market under this legislation. Would the gas the Saskatchewan Power Corporation purchased be deemed to have been purchased at a higher price than the price for which the Corporation was selling it?


John Napier Turner: The answer is no. The
Saskatchewan government is satisfied that the Saskatchewan Power Corporation would not be adversely affected by this legislation as amended.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is the assurance I wanted.
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43.1 agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the title carry?


Mr. Fairweather:: On division.
Title agreed to on division.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mbs. Morin):: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Now!


Stanley Howard Knowles: No!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton), seconded by Mr. Jamieson, moves that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, there is no bill before us. The bill has not yet been reprinted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point has been well made. Many amendments have been made to this bill. It has to be reprinted before it can be given third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: At the end of April.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 29, 1975, consideration of the motion of Mr. Danson that Bill C-46, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Danson:: Madam Speaker, I thought other hon. members would like to speak on this bill before it is passed, but I should like to rise at this time because I am sure that everyone appreciates the urgency-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point is that the minister cannot speak now.


An hon. Member:: Nobody else got up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He cannot speak now unless the Chair informs the House that by so doing he will close the debate. And that has not happened.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Wake up over there!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I suggested that if anybody else wanted to speak-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I would have risen on a point of order but there was so much noise that I could not have made myself heard. I rose to speak because I did not see anyone else rising. I thought that everyone recognized the excellence, the urgency of and the need for this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I must advise the House that if the hon. minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I rose to speak on the bill but the minister rose first. It comes as a great surprise to me, and I am sure to
February 26, 1975

many other people, that the government does not have all the answers to the present housing crisis. What with the millions of dollars hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches opposite have squandered on housing surveys, urban planning studies and urban demonstration programs since 1969, one would think they must have the answer to any question or problem which could possibly arise on these subjects in the next 20 years. But this is obviously not the case. The government has come up with very few answers which have contributed significantly to easing Canada's housing crisis.
Whenever I think of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) the image conjured up is that of the fellow in the stands at a professional hockey game. I mean the fellow who walks around shouting "Programs, programs". He usually has little trouble selling his products since nothing else is available, but because the players and the game are changing so fast the program is invariably out of date and inaccurate by the time it is sold. The program seller, being a well meaning sort, immediately has another program drawn up for the next home game. Unfortunately, with player trades, expansions and teams gone out of business, the new program is again out of date. This persists until the man with all the programs finally realizes that he needs one which lists all the players and all the teams, a comprehensive program, as it were.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs has not realized this yet. He continues to produce stop-gap, after-the-fact programs which he hopes will hold the attention of spectators for long enough to give him a chance of coming up with a newer one. Admittedly, he is getting better at it. But he does not seem to realize how important, how vital this game is. Bill C-46 is still not sufficient to make reasonable priced housing available to a reasonable number of Canadians.
The housing situation in Canada today now constitutes, as my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands so accurately put it on January 27, a crisis of major proportions. I hope that all realistic members of the House-and I use a description which the Minister of Urban Affairs repeatedly applies to himself-realize the magnitude and the gravity of the situation. I do not need to quote statistics showing an apartment vacancy rate of under 2 per cent-as low as .1 per cent in some cities-or refer to the fact that fewer than 5 per cent of Canadians can afford to buy a home in urban centres.
The situation is extremely serious and I think the minister must surely realize this. I doubt if Bill C-46 will alleviate many of the major problems. The deficiencies of Bill C-46 have been well articulated in preceding speeches, and I should like to make my remarks in a more positive vein. This minister seems to me to have a very genuine concern for the challenges facing him, and for that reason I am sure he welcomes any and all suggestions that are meant to help him ease the housing crisis.
The first suggestion I would have for the minister is to make every effort to trim the red tape involved in erecting a dwelling. As any developer who has attempted to have a housing sub-division or other major housing proposal approved can attest, there seems to be a conspiracy among
National Housing Act
the various levels of government to deprive low and middle income families of suitable housing at reasonable cost. I base this statement on the fact that it can take up to two years or more to get a development plan approved by all the legislative bodies concerned. This has to increase costs enormously; costs that must be borne by the consumer.
Major developers have been quoted as saying they could reduce the cost of a house by 50 per cent, if not for bureaucratic red tape and the laggardly, out of date processing procedures employed by the three levels of government. The province of Ontario has made some strides in the last two years to streamline these procedures. Previous to this up to 40 ministries and agencies had to be consulted in order to approve a development proposal. I would like to read some comments from a Toronto newspaper on cutting housing costs in half. This article appeared in the Toronto Star and it stated:
Single-family housing could be provided in and around Metropolitan Toronto at half the present $40,000-plus average price if only developers were given co-operation by government in place of restrictions and outright hostility.
That, at least, is the contention of four key figures in the development industry who took part in a round-table discussion of the urban housing problem.
The article then continued as follows:
Provincial Government financing of water and sewer services for privately held land ready for development, aimed at flooding the market with serviced land so as to drive down the price of a serviced lot-now at a record high $22,000 average;
Relaxation, at least in specified areas, of a long list of restrictions on new subdivisions such as minimum lot sizes, requirement of elaborate local servicing and stipulations as to the type of building materials used.
Elimination of federal and provincial sales taxes on building materials totalling 17 per cent.
They reasoned that an over-supply of serviced lots would soon bring the price of a normal 50-by-100 foot lot back to the $11,000 level current in Mississauga as recently as two years ago during a short period of surplus.
Beyond that, the price could be trimmed to about $5,000 a lot by permitting single-family homes on lots 20 to 25 feet wide with a bare minimum of services-a good gravel road, open storm sewers and overhead power lines.
And the cost of the house itself-now about $18,000 to $20,000 for a three-bedroom bungalow-could be trimmed to about $15,000 by eliminating the sales taxes and in some cases substituting cheaper materials, such as aluminum siding for brick veneer.
Another topic to be raised during tri-level discussions is a better system for taxation for so-called agricultural land owned by speculators on the outskirts of or adjacent to cities. Millions of dollars in profit are being made when these properties are sold. It is only fair that a portion of the profit be paid back to the communities in the form of a more equitable tax system than is in force in many locations.
Agricultural lands should be taxed on a deferred basis when they are developed or sold; that is, land which is re-zoned for residential development should be back taxed at the residential land assessment rate. Such an arrangement would not hurt the land owners appreciably since the increased tax could be deducted as an operating expense from their capital gains tax, but it would result in a great deal more money being available to the municipalities for servicing of land. Some provinces and cities

February 26, 1975
National Housing Act
already employ such a system, and the minister should endeavour to bring it to the attention of others.
It is up to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to approach the provinces and the municipalities to improve the situation in this regard. He could do this at the next tri-level meeting on housing and urban affairs.
I am not advocating unrestrained development with no safeguards for the community, of course; but as anyone who has had any contact with the present approving bodies knows, they have a long way to go before their process could be called efficient.
Those two levels of government notwithstanding, I feel the Minister of State for Urban Affairs could go a long way toward unification of his housing programs. With the multiplicity of aid plans and the maze of assistance programs he now advertises, many prospective house buyers are hesitant to attempt to unravel it all without the aid of a lawyer, and we all know how much they charge these days.
The minister cannot possibly say he is happy with the complexity of the present mess. He must develop a comprehensive program, and he must do it soon. Cutting through the confusion surrounding the government's housing policy, and I use the word policy loosely, is a further source of expense to developers. The incentive is not there for them to risk large amounts of capital on plans that may be delayed unreasonably.
Let me refer to a recent newspaper article under the heading "New Housing Index Shows Rising Costs Worse Than Thought". This article refers to Statistics Canada, and it states:
Statistics Canada for the first time has published figures showing the trend of new-house prices in six metropolitan areas of Canada.
The new index confirms what everyone already knew-that new-house prices in Toronto rose almost 80 per cent in the three years ending last August, the latest month for which figures are available.
The selling prices for new houses of equal quality in Montreal rose by 82.5 per cent in the same three-year period, with more than half of this rise occurring in the last year.
The figures also confirm that the "new houses" component of the consumer price index has greatly underestimated the actual rise in selling prices, meaning that the price index has not adequately indicated the rising cost of housing to Canadians in urban centres.
The CPI component for new houses across Canada shows a 40.3 per cent rise in the three years and a 12.5 per cent increase for the year ending last August. This is only about half the increase shown by the figures published yesterday.
The reason for the difference is that the price index for new houses in based on labour and material cost trends and does not include the price of land, which has been the primary reason for rising house prices.
For union workers with wages indexed to the consumer price index, this means their cost-of-living pay increases do not cover the rise in the price of buying a house in the past three years.
There was further criticism of the government's housing plans at a recent meeting of the provincial housing ministers in Ottawa. At that time they stated, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of January 30 this year:
The provincial ministers renewed a demand made by Ontario and some other provinces two years ago for freedom to spend their allotment of housing funds the way they wish.
They said the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.... should be banker handing out federal money for housing programs that provincial governments consider necessary in their regions.

At the moment, the federal government is directly involved in a number of social housing programs, setting the ground rules under which federal money can be spent.
The provincial ministers were critical of mid-year changes in CMHC budgets reducing spending in some programs.
"The allocation of these priority funds should be at the discretion of the individual provinces," the provincial statement said.
In a further newspaper article in respect of housing under the heading "New Fiscal Policies Needed to Spur Housing" it is stated, and this article is from the Globe and Mail of January 16, 1975:
A series of new fiscal and monetary initiatives is still required and should be directed particularly toward Canada's housing industry, since the recent budget measures will tend on balance to deter housing purchases in 1975.
Though $500 cash grants are now available from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. for first-time buyers of moderately priced houses, this is more than overshadowed by the negative demand effect of the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan (RHOSP).
This new government scheme permits deductible contributions of $1,000 a year to a maximum of $10,000 if applied to the future purchase of a house. This plan will provide a large and expanding pool of savings flows to the thrift institutions. Though the RHOSP scheme is interesting, there are several flaws in its introduction at this particular time. It provides a generous incentive to save and may marginally postpone some housing demand. But as presently constituted, this plan will not likely increase the supply of mortgage funds very significantly. Unfortunately, there is neither a guarantee nor any mechanism to ensure that the bulk of these funds will flow in the desired direction of mortgage loans.
In a recent article in the Montreal Gazette, the following was stated:
As for control of federal housing money, certainly Ottawa has an obligation to exercise some direction here. It must make sure the money does not come under the influence of a developer's lobby once it reaches the provincial or municipal level and that it does not go into the development of chronically underfinanced commuter communities.
On policy matters, however, Ottawa does not speak from a position of strength. Its housing non-policy very likely acts as an impediment to provincial initiatives. Until it straightens out the mishmash of programs that has accumulated over the years, the federal government can expect continuing criticism about its housing policies.
A system like this could cut the initial mortgage payments but allow them to rise as a homeowner's earning power increases over the years. Economists at MIT see this as a large step in stimulating the housing industry in the U.S.; the plan might also prove effective here.
The president of the Toronto Home Builder's Association has listed a number of suggestions for lowering the price of houses. I agree with him when he says that lowering standards is not an acceptable method, but some of his other suggestions are, first, a lower quality of services in new subdivisions. He feels there is no need for curbs and gutters in new subdivisions. Small ditches and asphalt roads would be more economical. Second, builders could build different sizes of houses, but co-operation is required from municipalities for this. Third, smaller lots would allow more houses to be built on a given piece of land. Fourth, municipal governments could help keep costs lower by bringing land on stream faster. Fifth, governments could provide more mortgage money at below market rates. Sixth, establish a unilateral building code so that builders would not be required to change drawings and specifications when moving from one municipality to
February 26, 1975

another. These are matters that the minister could also take up at the next tri-level meeting on housing.
Many notable economists have stated that house price inflation will not be brought under control until the supply of houses exceeds demand for a time. This is only logical, but the call is for a minimum of 275,000 new housing starts this year, as opposed to the 210,000 that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has set as his minimum. The eight provinces at last week's federal-provincial housing conference unanimously called for at least 250,000 starts this year.
If this objective is to be met it is obvious that the minister will have to look very seriously at these suggestions, and others. He must realize that he does not have all the answers, as none of us do, and should begin listening more closely to the other groups involved in the industry.
Earlier in this parliament I made the suggestion that the government look more closely at the mobile home as a source of relief to the housing squeeze. The parliamentary secretary at that time expressed a great deal of interest and assured me the suggestion would be investigated more fully. What has been done in this regard since then?
I think this minister has made some mistakes during his tenure, some of which have had a negative effect on house sales. One persistent miscue is the announcement of programs, such as the $500 bonus on moderately priced new houses, as long as six months before a program will be implemented. This keeps prospective buyers from going ahead with their plans in anticipation of the impending program.
Last fall, $3.6 million were spent on a housing survey that asked questions like: "how many bathrooms does your house have?". Again I must mention the $100 million urban demonstration program that this minister's predecessor freely admitted would not result in any houses being built. That $100 million would go a long way towards supplying municipalities with funds to supply serviced lots. These surveys and studies are not needed.
As the previous minister responsible for urban affairs also admitted, we have a large over-surplus of surveys and statistics in this country. The situation is well known; the problems are recognized. These surveys do not build houses. I say, divert the money toward mortgages, and toward supplying three bedroom bungalows on serviced lots.
The most extensive and useful survey that has been done under the federal government was the 1969 report of the Hellyer task force on housing and urban planning. But how many of this report's recommendations have been implemented? Very few, I think. I would like to suggest that if those recommendations had been heeded and more effective action taken on them, we would not be in the mess in which we presently find ourselves.
But how much money has been spent on studies and surveys in the last six years? The walls of the urban affairs offices must be lined with the results.
What we need from this government and this minister is not more rhetoric, statistics or surveys. What we need is a more unified, efficient policy, some positive action to cut the red tape involved in building a house, and some direct
National Housing Act
assistance to municipalities to supply serviced lots at a reasonable cost-nothing less, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I am particularly happy to see in the House now both the former and the present minister responsible for housing because, as both these hon. gentlemen will of course realize, in my speech, I will deal with the subject that involves them, namely, the subject of the native and rural housing program in which both ministers, in my opinion, have made some serious mistakes.
Before I speak on that subject I would like to make a few comments about some of the problems that confront me daily in trying to interpret the existing programs and existing legislation to my constituents. I have awaited with great interest the introduction of this bill, but I have not held my breath. Probably that was a good thing because otherwise I would have suffocated.
I believe that if a great statesman had been in this House, such as was in England at one time, he would have said that never have so many said so much about so little. I am as disappointed as every Canadian must be, whether he lives in a metropolitan centre or close to one, whether he lives in an urban centre, apart from the major metropolitan areas, or whether he lives in a rural area in Canada, because the bill does not address itself to the main problems faced by Canadians today.
It is inconceivable to me that the minister can declare that the dream of owning a private home near any of the urban centres of our country is a forgotten dream and that it will not be possible for Canadians to own a private home. With that announcement a Canadian way of life has been abandoned or destroyed. My constituents, as well as those of my colleagues, are responding because we are not reacting to this announcement with any great degree of enthusiasm.
I do not read into the bill, which the minister has introduced and tried to defend, all the things the minister says are there. He said that the bill moves to eliminate, through the removal of the federal sales tax, the high cost of construction. Several of my colleagues have touched on that. Sales tax has been reduced to 5 per cent, but the effect of inflation counteracts this and there is not any real reduction. In order to make any impact, the sales tax should be removed in its entirety.
With regard to the high cost of money, the minister said that he has invited private capital into the market and that there will be a significant breakthrough in the alleviation of the high rate of interest. The minister knows what should have been done with interest rates on housing. It has been suggested to him before what should be done to attract private capital to the housing market.
The idea would have been to allow private capital in the housing market and to allow for deduction of interest earnings on such investment from income tax. I suggest that the minister has tried to get this idea past his cabinet colleagues and has not succeeded because I think that he knows how to reduce interest rates, if he were really serious. I suggest that his cabinet colleagues did not agree with some of his ideas. The program he did introduce will

National Housing Act
not reduce interest rates and will not reduce the cost of lending to those people who find it difficult to cope with the high payments even for a moderately priced house today.
I would like to touch on the high cost of land for a moment because I am particularly concerned with some of the problems which have recently developed in the province of British Columbia. That province is following a policy of leaseholds, and I have a brochure which deals with provincial rental housing where the federal government shares fifty-fifty in a major new program, such as is described here, to build and operate provincially owned rental units for everyone, not just the disadvantaged. These housing units are built on provincially owned land, and the units will be provincially owned. The program does not describe who will maintain these units, except that the federal government will share that as well.
I do not know whether the minister is as concerned as I am about some of the ideas which have been generated in Victoria lately. In fact a couple of years ago the provincial government indicated that there would be no more private land ownership in the province, that all land will be vested in the Crown, and that there will only be leaseholds for people owning property. I think it should be the responsibility of the minister and Central Mortgage and Housing to see that Canadians in British Columbia have a choice as to whether they want to lease their land from any government or whether they would like to own it.
I take strong exception to the fact that the act and the corporation are being used to further the kind of approach the government of British Columbia is taking toward land.
I would like to leave the metropolitan areas and discuss some of the difficulties people in the outlying areas in mid Canada and northern Canada are experiencing with the implementation of various programs. As the minister and my colleagues know, many Canadians in these areas find it necessary to live in a mobile way. Living in a mobile home is the only way many of those people can have a roof over their heads in some areas, because financing for such units has been available through lending institutions other than those which traditionally lend for housing. It has been a cheaper way of getting into a home. By virtue of their employment and domestic affairs, others find it necessary to be mobile, and they move their homes from place to place. It has been difficult, and is becoming more so for municipalities or private operators of mobile home parks to provide the necessary services to cater to this demand.
The program in the bill does not offer any solution to the problem faced by these private operators or municipalities, and does nothing to assist them with their very expensive installation of services, such as water and sewer. Of course it can be argued that if it is close to a municipality, the municipality can apply for some assistance with sewer outfall lines, but there is no assistance for land development, or for development of these very necessary facilities to municipalities or private developers. That has been a very serious omission. The bill does not deal with or recognize that need.
The $500 acquisition grant does not apply to an owner of a mobile unit unless he has lived on a lot for a period of five years. But of course the mobile home dweller does not

commit himself to a lease, or does not own a lot for a period of five years because he may work on a construction site at James Bay or on the Peace River dam. Then of course if he is on a lot for five years he is not mobile, so that discriminates against a very important and significant number of Canadians who find that kind of living necessary.
A rural application of many of the programs simply does not apply. There is the matter of septic tanks. I know that this minister and the former minister have said that local officials can use discretion and can allow for direct lending for homes which are tied to septic tanks. In actual fact it does not work. I can demonstrate this for the minister. I can show him dozens and dozens of letters I have received, and that I have followed up with the office in Prince George, which is responsible for two-thirds of the province of British Columbia, without result.
If one does not have access to one of the traditional lending institutions, there is no direct lending to smaller municipalities which are not incorporated and do not have water and sewer services. There is no direct lending to people who live on the fringes of these areas on small holdings, which is another way of Canadian life, and the buck is being passed all the time.
If I look at AHOP, which has been proclaimed as one of the major breakthroughs and one of the shining examples of how the housing situation can be solved in Canada, as it applies in central and northern Canada I find that it just gets people in these areas into more problems.
What the minister and his officials do not realize is that the cost of building is a minor part of the cost of the house. People up there have to use their ingenuity to find new and cheaper ways of building homes. Maintenance is a major expense, however, and none of the present programs have addressed themselves to this. It costs a great deal more to heat and maintain a house in those regions than it does to build, and although payments under AHOP and other social programs may be low, the cost of maintenance can put a house out of the reach of many families. This problem should be given special attention.
I should like to turn now to the matter of the native and rural housing projects. I made some inquiries of the information service of Central Mortgage and Housing about this program and was told that there was no such program but there was, rather, a combination of all the programs of the corporation. After long and painful deliberations with the native community of Canada the minister announced on March 27 that 50,000 homes would be built within five years for native people.
In answer to my question of November 27 the minister responded that a booklet would be circulated to hon. members concerning the programs maintained by his department. That booklet arrived about a week ago. The various programs are enumerated, but the native and rural housing program was not amongst them. In a later brochure called "Quick Review for Ready Reference" the program is mentioned on the last page. In that brochure the minister said that the program was designed to acquire or to build 50,000 housing units and to rehabilitate an equal number over the next five years.

In reply to my questions the minister said that the program was going quite well, although some of the provinces had not responded. He did not refer at all to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon where there was no requirement for provincial co-operation. He said that 24 units had been built after one season of construction. I suppose you have to start somewhere, but 24 out of 50,000 is not a great achievement.
I received a letter dated April 30, 1974, from the former minister who said:
We have just given a grant of $219,000 to BCANSI-
That is the British Columbia Association of Non-Status Indians.
-to assist them in developing a housing delivery system. Their proposal includes the construction of 3,500 new houses, the upgrading of 1,750 existing houses and the purchase of 1,750 houses for resale or rental to native people over a period of seven years. For the current year they have set as a goal the construction of 200 new units and the acquisition of another 200 existing units. They also hope to undertake an extensive rehabilitation and renovation program.
I should like to know if 200 new homes have been built in British Columbia, and whether 200 homes have been rehabilitated. I should like to know how well that delivery program, which cost $219,000 in 1974, is working. I do not see any activity in British Columbia that would reflect that kind of investment.
The native and rural housing program was promised to the native people in 1971 and 1972. At a meeting with a native group on November 21, 1973, the then minister said he would soon be ready to announce a native program. About the same time a senior official at CMHC who was responsible for that program was accused of showing it to the native people before it was announced. He was dismissed as a result of this, and the program was delayed.
The minister said the program will be worth waiting for and the native people believed him. They have demonstrated patience beyond comprehension over the last 100 years, Madam Speaker. I guess we can wait another two weeks. At one time we were told we had only a month to wait before the implementation of the program, and another time, that we had only three months to wait. Clearly, there is no such thing as a native people's housing program. The native people have been cheated again. As far as I know, there is not any native housing project.
At one time officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation met with people of the native community in the cities and on the reserves. I spoke to the minister about the need for housing for native peoples on reserves. The minister said there would be no problem. His officials were to consult with the natives, and native peoples were to be provided with housing, including low-cost rental housing, public housing and co-operating housing.
When these programs were suggested to native peoples, they, instead of becoming excited, reacted in an unexpected way. They said that the treaties stipulated that Her Majesty would be responsible for providing native peoples with proper shelter. They also said that the minister's programs would perpetuate them as recipients of welfare. For those reasons they were not interested in co-operating with the minister. They did not like his fancy programs.
National Housing Act
Clearly, this country lacks a native people's and rural housing program. The $10,000 which is available to people living on reserves for the building of a house is inadequate, considering present conditions. I say this, although the minister has treated me well and granted me private audiences to discuss this problem. He is a new minister and aware of the problem.
I see that my colleague from Skeena is looking at me. Is she happy with what the people at Central Mortgage and Housing have done? I trust she can defend their actions. I know some of the problems in the constituency of Skeena, because they are similar to many of the problems in my constituency and other areas of Canada. I think she will find it difficult to make a good case for the present system, because it does not respond to real need.
You see, Madam Speaker, in Canada there is a dual standard in housing. There is one standard for urban centres where the votes are, and another for rural areas where the need is. I should like to attend some meetings with my colleagues from Skeena and see how she defends this program. I suggest she will find it difficult to defend it.


An hon. Member:: No votes, no houses.


Frank Oberle: Quite. I managed, by scrounging and scheming, to obtain 12 homes out of 24 which have been built so far under the program which calls for 50,000 housing units to be built.
I want to mention an idea that is exciting, looks good on paper, and has to do with new innovations in building construction. Over the weekend I visited a small factory in Prince George which manufactures new types of building blocks. Engineers of Central Mortgage and Housing and private engineers have examined these building blocks and given them a clean bill of health. They are strong, suitable for our northern areas, and ready to be used. The factory has been set up and the person in charge has already built two homes of 1,200 square feet, one costing about $13,500 and built by a contractor, and the other costing about $10,000, and built by a husband and wife.
The blocks are easy to assemble. I asked the factory manager what response he has had from Central Mortgage and Housing. He said, "Well, of course we cannot get financing outside the city". He said that because of local bylaws builders are reluctant to put up homes made of these blocks. I hope that the minister can avail himself of the diligent work which has been done by the engineering department of that factory, so that the people of Canada may benefit. I know of several interesting innovations in housing which could be used, particularly for native housing in rural and northern areas.
I hope the minister will insist that officials serving in various areas of this country will examine various projects and schemes of the type I have outlined, and help to sell them to those concerned. In Prince George we retained the services of a social development officer. She is a capable lady who works out of an office in Prince George. I hope she will visit the factory I mentioned and recommend use of the new building blocks in the Yukon, central and northern British Columbia, and other areas where the need is great.

National Housing Act
When this bill was introduced on second reading, the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) said that inadequate housing in Canada is indeed the breeding ground for a lot of human misery in our country. I hope the minister will soon tell us what he intends to do to implement a program for building rural and native people's housing. Unless he implements some such program, the native people of this land will feel they have been cheated once more. I have before me a document showing what has been done in this area since 1971, and it is not exciting reading. Unless the minister institutes an adequate program, the native people will knock on his door again and tell him they have been betrayed. They will insist on an adequate rural and native people's housing project.
If the minister does not intend to participate in this debate, perhaps one of his colleagues will tell us what the government intends to do to meet real needs in this country. It is useless relying on government information services; Central Mortgage and Housing officials know nothing about this program. Frankly, I do not think the minister knows much about it either.
We were promised 50,000 new homes for native and rural peoples in the next five years. We want to be assured that this will happen, that the government recognizes the plight of native peoples and that it has committed itself to solving some of their special problems.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to speak in the House on this subject since the minister's appointment to his portfolio. May I therefore take this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment. I would not wish him to think that my congratulations involve necessarily or indeed at all any approbation of the policies that may have been foisted upon him. I hope he will recognize this as a kindly personal wish and not as any political gesture.
Like the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), I wish to speak first about housing problems as they affect my constituency. The hon. member mentioned certain groups of Canadians who have a very real and serious problem in connection with housing. The same is true of people who live in the less prosperous parts of metropolitan areas such as Toronto. Many of them live in Greenwood.
I do not know whether this coincides with the minister's philosophy, but the major way of helping these people is through an extension of public housing. I find no reference to public housing in these amendments. It may be the minister will put his efforts into that field later. However, let me point out to the minister that the real problem we have today is not people who can finance to acquire home ownership. Admittedly that has some importance, but the real problem is that there are many people in existing housing who are threatened with eviction. These people have rented for 20 or 30 years. They are now older and living on pension. Because of enormous increases they are not able to pay the rent.

I have, as do many other members, a constituency office. No week passes without a substantial number of people coming to my office and urging me to try to assist them in getting low cost housing through the Ontario Housing Corporation, which is public housing supported to some extent by federal funds. I am reminded by my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), that the funds for this purpose have been reduced. If that is the case, the minister is proceeding in entirely the wrong direction.
Rents for public housing are geared to income. The people who suffer from lack of housing are those who do not have adequate income to pay rentals at the present time. Many of them are older people. They have lived in the same place, paid their rent regularly and, in many cases in my constituency, have maintained the homes in an admirable fashion. Now that they are older, they are being forced out. They simply cannot afford to pay anything close to the commercial rents that are being required. I therefore plead with the minister to shift his emphasis toward housing and not cut down on the funds available for that.
The major emphasis I want to make is with regard to co-operative and non-profit housing which is being defined as the third force. No doubt the minister is aware that his predecessor, who was in the House earlier-


An hon. Member:: He is here.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will not try to distract his attention. I do not think I would succeed. The former minister attended a seminar on non-profit and co-operative housing programs which was held at the Holiday Inn in Toronto on March 25, 1974. He was speaking to representatives of this form of housing programs. His words could not have been warmer or more enthusiastic. He said, and I quote:
I would like, first of all, to express my appreciation to all of the representatives of community housing organizations who are here today. I congratulate you and I welcome you as partners in an important humanitarian enterprise. I want to assure you of the continued support of the federal government in your work.
You are in a position to make a unique contribution to the solution of housing problems. As private individuals, living within the community you serve, you are in a better position than any government to recognize and respond to the particular needs of the community. You bring an intimate human quality to the process of planning and managing housing. No one else can do that so well.
I am referring to the former Minister of State for Urban Affairs, now the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bas-ford). I am referring to him with high praise at the moment. If he listens to all of my speech, he will find that will be followed by a lack of enthusiasm for the follow-up both by him and the present minister. He dealt with the third force. He said:
The third sector can never build all of the housing that we will need but it is a creative power and a very sensitive and responsible instrument which works for the many thousands of Canadians who don't have the financial clout to command much attention in the market place but who, with a little bit of financial and moral support, can look after themselves.
Because I put a very high value on this kind of initiative-
Non-profit and co-operative groups are in an ideal position to use the rehabilitation program as a self-help exercise.
I want to say that we in my constituency accepted this. We have at least 75 units of co-operative housing. It is
February 26, 1975

extremely well managed. All the nice things the former minister said about the value of this sort of housing are there.
I see that it is six o'clock, Madam Speaker. I will have to wait for the continuance of my speech to explain to the minister why I feel he is not following this through with vigour. I want assurance from him that he not only accepts, but intends to translate these glowing words into action.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, I would like to announce the business for tomorrow for the guidance of hon. members. It is the intention to call first Bill C-49, to amend the Income Tax Act, for third reading. When that is disposed of we will revert to the bill which has just been under discussion, namely, Bill C-46.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 27, 1975