1975-02-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I gave notice that I wished to raise a question of privilege concerning the practice that seems to be developing of members of this place appearing before emanations of the other place. I indicated at that time that I thought it was a fairly delicate and difficult subject with which to deal, and having had some time to look at it I am confirmed in my original estimate that it is indeed a difficult proposition for members to focus upon.
I have now had an opportunity to review the Standing Orders of the House of Commons that deal with the other place, and I find that the Standing Orders provide for a form of address and communication which is foremost, distinct and correct. These are found in Standing Orders 22(1), 22(2), 22(3) and 23, and they deal with conflicts between the House of Commons and the Senate.
Unlike the House of Commons, the Senate has a rule that regulates the way in which members of the other place may appear before committees of this place, and I should like to quote it to Your Honour. It is rule No. 104 of the Senate Standing Orders and it provides as follows:
(1)	When the House of Commons requests that a senator or any of the officers, clerks, or servants of the Senate attend before the House of Commons to be examined or appear before any committee thereof, such request shall be by message from the House of Commons requesting that the Senate grant leave to such senator, officer, clerk or servant to attend.
(2)	If the Senate grants leave, an officer, clerk or servant of the Senate shall attend before the House of Commons or a committee thereof, and a senator may attend if he thinks fit.
(3)	Without such leave, a senator, officer, clerk or servant of the Senate shall not, on any account, under penalty of being committed to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod or to prison during the pleasure of the Senate, go down to the House of Commons, or send his answer in writing, or appear by counsel to answer any accusation there.
There is no such complementary rule in our Standing Orders and therefore, in order to find out just exactly what the traditions are, I had to go back and examine the Journals of the House of Commons and the Senate. In passing, I should also like to point out that rule 98 of the Senate provides as follows:
Any person whose interests may be affected by a private bill
(a)	may appear before the committee to which such bill has been referred or may make comments to the committee in writing;
(b)	if required to do so by the committee, shall appear before the committee.
Further, rule 18 deals with ministers of the Crown appearing before Senate committees and provides:
When a bill or other matter relating to any subject administered by a department of the Government of Canada is being considered by the Senate or in committee of the whole, a minister, not being a member of the Senate, may on invitation from the Senate enter the Senate chamber and, subject to the rules, orders, usages, forms and proceedings of the Senate, may take part in the debate.
Those are the rules of the other place that govern the appearance of members of this House before the other place. Since, as I say, there was no complementary rule in the Standing Orders of the Canadian House of Commons,
I went back to investigate various authorities which we use in this House. The first, of course, is Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, and at page 247, citation 312 provides:
Whenever the evidence of a senator is required before a committee of the Commons, it is usual for the Chairman to move in the House that a message be sent to the Senate requesting Their Honours to give leave to ... one of their members, to attend and give evidence before the select committee, etc.
A motion that a message be sent to the Senate requesting leave for a senator to give evidence before a select committee of the House of Commons cannot be entertained until a report thereon has been presented by the committee.
Since Beauchesne had no comment at all to make on the reverse procedure, which of course is the one in which we are interested, I went back to Bourinot's Parliamentary Practice, third edition, 1916, where at page 48, citation IX provides as follows:
In the Senate witnesses generally attend on a notice from the clerk of the committee. In case a witness will not attend, application must be made to the House for the necessary power to compel his attendance.
Whenever the evidence of a senator is required before a committee of the Commons, it is usual for the chairman to move in the House that a message be sent to the Senate requesting Their Honours to give leave to... one of their members, to attend and give evidence before the select committee, etc. The Senate will consider the message and give the required leave to the senator, "if he thinks fit". If the attendance of a member of the Commons is required before a committee of the Senate, the same procedure will be followed.
So far that is the only quotation I have been able to find in the documents which we have for our use in this House. However, in May's Parliamentary Practice, eighteenth edition, 1971, there are a number of quotations which relate to the going back and forth of members of the Commons to the Lords, and vice versa, and they are quite extensive in the way in which they deal with this. Briefly I quote from page 99 as follows:
As regards attendance in the other House, one House will not permit one of its members to be summoned by the other, without a message desiring his attendance, or without the consent of the member whose attendance is required.
28996- 1 5

February 24, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Reid
Under the heading "Other Forms of Misconduct" in May's eighteenth edition, at page 140, we find the following:
Giving evidence elsewhere in relation to any debates or proceedings in the House of which he is a member or officer, or any committee thereof ...
Attending as a witness before the other House or any committee thereof without the leave of the House of which he is a member or officer.
I would refer Your Honour to a further chapter of May's at page 668. I will not quote it but it does give the full detail of the two quotations which I have already read, under the heading "Attendance of Members of the Other Place". We have gone back and looked at the precedents which have taken place in our House from time to time and I want to raise three of them to indicate just what has happened.


An hon. Member:: Couldn't you have done this by letter?


John Mercer Reid: On May 16, 1919, the House of Commons gave its permission to the request from the Senate that the Hon. F. Cochrane, P.C., M.P., attend before the Senate committee. Mr. Cochrane at that time was a minister without portfolio. The House of Commons accepted this request as a matter of routine and there was no debate. This will be found in the House of Commons Debates of that date. A more interesting one, however, is the case of Senator Crerar who was at the time leader of the Progressive Party in the House of Commons. On May 11, 1921, the House of Commons agreed to allow him to testify before a Senate committee after the appropriate formalities had been gone through.
In 1931 the Senate received a number of requests from the Commons for permission for a number of members to appear before a Commons committee that was investigating the Beauharnois scandal. I would particularly direct the attention of the House to the Senate Journals of July 14, 1931, where it is reported that three senators were given permission by the Senate to appear before the House of Commons special committee investigating the Beauharnois scandal.
I think those are the main points I wanted to make, with the exception of one interesting precedent which took place in 1961 when the then member of parliament for St. Boniface, Mr. Laurier Regnier, appeared before the Senate Committee on Banking and Commerce. He was dealing with Bill C-129 and claimed, among other things, that the bill was improperly before the Senate; that it had not properly passed all stages in the House of Commons, according to his interpretation. He entered into a constitutional debate with the chairman of the committee. The most important point is that he was not invited by the chairman of that committee; he appeared of his own volition and apparently requested that the committee hear him. I should like to quote the following comments appearing at page 16 of the relevant committee report:


The Chairman:: Is the committee ready now to hear Mr. Regnier, M.P.?


Hon.   Senators@: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Regnier, will you come forward to my table please? Are you appearing voluntarily, Mr. Regnier?


Mr. REgnier:: Yes.

Apparently those questions were asked because the custom was, even in 1961, for members of this place to appear over there only in response to a certificate filed in the appropriate way, in the way which I have already outlined to the House. Mr. Regnier then went on to make his case before the Senate committee. As I understand it, not very much happened as a result. However, it is the only case that I have been able to find of a member of the House going over to the other place to make a case, particularly on a bill that had already been passed by the House in the normal way. In doing so, it may be argued that Mr. Regnier was in contempt of Standing Order 35 which indicates that a member cannot cast reflection on a vote of the House of Commons.
Therefore, I would make the following comments. First of all, it is quite clear that in the past there has been a whole series of very clear lines of communication between the committees of the House of Commons and the committees of the Senate when they wished to have witnesses appear before them. The procedure was clear and was practised by both the House and the Senate. The other point I want to make is that there has been a long practice of ministers and parliamentary secretaries going over to the Senate; this has been so in order that they may be permitted to promote government legislation. It is the same right that private members have when they go over to promote their private member's bills whether they be public or private. The fact is that because the bills are begun and processed by private members, those members have the same right to appear before Senate emanations in that regard.
Therefore, there is another point to be made about the Regnier case: it is that he was appearing over there after the House of Commons had given consent for the legislation to go through. In point of fact, the legislation had been passed by unanimous consent through all three stages early one evening.
This means that the question that must be put to the House is whether or not a member can go to the other place and raise doubts about a piece of legislation on which the House of Commons has already taken a stand and upon which it has acted. To do so would seem to me to put the member in violation of Standing Order 35.
The second point-this is my concluding point-is that it seems that a member of parliament should have the right to appear before a Senate emanation only in cases where the Senate is discussing a matter such as in the case of the Davey committee on the mass media, or the Croll committee on poverty, when the subject may or may not appear before the House of Commons in the same way in a reasonable length of time. What I am asking Your Honour to do is to rule on the practice of members of parliament to be heard on a variety of issues, in many cases on legislation which is undergoing study in the Senate on a matter which will be coming here in due course. This would seem to me to be in violation of the well known law of anticipation of what may happen in the House. Therefore, I think it would be helpful if Your Honour were to investigate this matter, take a stand and clear up something that seems to be undesirable in the way in which we are carrying on our business.
February 24, 1975


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) in raising his question of privilege has not mentioned my name, there is no question that he raised this matter initially last Wednesday because that morning I attended the meeting of a committee of the Senate to present a statement of my views on certain aspects of Bill C-29, the Canada Business Corporations Act. The hon. member is extremely capable and hard working, but I think there are better ways for him to use his energy and talents than to attempt to limit the right of action of members of parliament, on behalf of the public, under the guise of protecting those rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to begin by submitting that in any event his motion may well be defective on procedural grounds. Standing Order 17 reads:
17 (1) Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
But subsection (2) goes on to say:
(2) Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 42, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the chamber during a course of the sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken-and if I am, I withdraw this point-the hon. member did not give notice under Standing Order 42, which requires 48 hours notice; and he did not, according to what he told me earlier today, give the Chair a written statement of the question he raised at least one hour prior to raising it in the House last Wednesday. I submit that either step is necessary because the matter he complains of did not arise out of proceedings in this chamber during the course of a sitting.
I want to say that I think in spite of this defect, the matter is such that I must say something about it on its merits. The hon. member has referred to some United Kingdom usages and rules, and there is something in our Standing Orders indicating that in cases not provided for in our rules we should have regard to the usages followed in the United Kingdom. Our Standing Order one does not speak of Standing Orders in the U.K., and the hon. member cited a Standing Order of the Senate which, if I am not mistaken, restates a standing order of the House of Lords.
To import the United Kingdom's Standing Orders into our proceedings by rulings of Mr. Speaker would be to do something which we do not ask our own Speaker to do. We insist on adopting Standing Orders by vote of this House. Our Standing Order says the usages of the United Kingdom shall be followed only in so far as they may be applicable in each case. No case has been made by the hon. member upon whom the burden of proof lies in this instance. I submit they are not applicable. Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, page 110, paragraph 119, reads as follows:
Although we may take a leaf out of its book, we have developed a parliamentary practice of our own based on British principles and yet clearly Canadian. While we appreciate the long experience of the United Kingdom House and seek to profit therefrom, we are the
Privilege-Mr. Reid
absolute and independent masters of our own procedure in accordance with our circumstances and needs.
I say that these usages are not appropriate for Canada, a country with our diversity and variety, requiring wide discussion of issues, particularly if the discussion is intended to be constructive and positive. In any event, I submit the UK. precedents are not relevant. They apply only where the United Kingdom upper House wishes to formally summon, that is to say, compel attendance of a member of the British House of Commons. This is clear from reading Erskine May's eighteenth edition at the page the hon. member cited but, more important, if one looks at the opening paragraph of chapter 25 of Erskine May where these pages are found, there are the following words under the heading "Witnesses and Parliament":
This chapter is mainly devoted to a description of the practice relating to the summoning of witnesses before either House or a committee of the whole House, and select committees of either House.
This is not relevant here because in my case I sought to testify before the Senate committee of my own volition; I was not summoned to attend. The initiative was mine. The Senate committee accepted my request and agreed to hear me.
The hon. member suggests that there is something wrong with going and testifying in the Senate because it may reflect on votes of this House, but hon. members comment in this chamber in many ways on bills after they have been voted on, without complaint from anyone. In every debate on economic questions, the government's previous budget policy is commented on, often adversely, even though the House as a whole has adopted it.
As I have said in this House, hon. members have called for reduction or elimination of taxes approved by the House. They call for the amendment or replacement of bills on other matters approved by the House. For example, hon. members call for the restoration of the death penalty even though the House voted to abolish it except in limited cases. No one complains that they raise it. Another important example is that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has said on several occasions that transportation policy in Canada is a mess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily accept this premise, but I want to say that in making that statement the minister thereby reflects on a decision of this House in passing the National Transportation Act, and no one, least of all the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, has ever complained that he said this.
What we are talking about here is not the comment by a member of parliament in this House on a bill it has voted on. What we are talking about is comment made outside this House, in fact before a committee of another deliberative body independent of this House.
Members appear and speak before city councils; they appear and speak before meetings of mayors, as did the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) recently. If one had time to check, one would probably find that members have appeared before committees of provincial legislatures and federal-provincial royal commissions. There is one instance of this that Your
28996-15%

February 24, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Reid
Honour mentioned the other day, that is, the Freedman report on railway run-throughs. Members speak to meetings of community groups and public meetings of all kinds, as well as to the press and on radio and television. In doing so, they speak about matters on which this House has taken formal decisions, and no one complains. Why should they be prevented from speaking in the same way if they appear before a committee of another independent, deliberative body-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and if they appear, as in my case, of their own volition and with the consent of that committee? Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member next going to come in here and say that once a bill is adopted in this House, a member cannot comment upon it to a meeting of a community group, a trade union, a service club or some other meeting?


An hon. Member:: He might.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Will he next say that we cannot comment on such bills to the press, radio or television, or write letters about them or engage in conversations about them with ordinary citizens? He may say he would never do this and that he does not intend to do it, but what is the true difference between any of these things and going voluntarily as a witness before a Senate committee? In both cases a member of parliament is speaking out about a matter of public concern which may have been the subject of a decision of this House.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are members of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Bar Association appear before committees of this House on bills, and they often go on to appear before committees of the Senate on the same matter. Is the hon. member arguing that Canadians who are members of parliament have fewer rights to speak than members of private interest groups who are simply private citizens?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if members of parliament cannot go before Senate committees without formal leave of this House, members who are ministers should not be able to do so either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: But they do, Mr. Speaker, and the other place does not first send a message to the House in every case requiring the minister's attendance, and the minister in every case does not first ask and get leave from the House to attend before a Senate committee. The hon. member's citation of the Senate rules is irrelevant. How can a rule of the Senate be imported as a precedent of this hon. chamber?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the rights and privileges of members of parliament. In this connection I submit the House makes no distinction between

members who are not ministers and those who are, and therefore if it is wrong for members like myself to go to the Senate, without leave, to speak about a bill voted on by this House, it is also wrong for ministers to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If I am not mistaken-and if I am, I will withdraw the point-on one occasion in the previous parliament a minister of the Crown went to a Senate committee and actually urged that committee to strike out a clause the House had voted to put in a bill.


An hon. Member:: That was "crazy Otto".


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member did not raise that as a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If the attendance of ministers at Senate committees is a precedent for anything, it is a precedent in favour of any member attending before such a committee if they wish to do so and the committee agrees to hear them. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday you ruled that parliamentary privilege deals primarily with the member's right of free speech within this chamber. Last Thursday, February 20, dealing with a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) and a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Montreal-Bouras-sa (Mr. Trudel) you quoted the words of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on this issue on April 29, 1971, when he said:
In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons.
Then you went on to say:
Bearing in mind that very concise reasoning, it seems to me that improvement upon it is impossible and, furthermore, unnecessary.
If parliamentary privilege is limited to free speech within this chamber, then how could a member speaking anywhere outside this chamber harm or infringe on this privilege? Let us remember that there are already many informal ways in which the right to speak of members is limited now in this chamber, and particularly of government members; and the possibility that that right might be further abridged under the guise of parliamentary reform is one that we should all be cognizant of.
Therefore, I submit that if there can be any governing principle of interpretation to apply to the question of members' privileges involving their right to speak, that principle should be that these privileges should be construed in a way that encourages and protects the MP's right, rather than limits it. The presumption should be against limitation. Mr. Speaker, I say this especially because of your ruling of last Thursday, as recorded on page 3386 of Hansard, where you are reported as having said:
-all of us must recognize that the role of a member of parliament extends far beyond his work in this chamber, that more and more each day in modern times a member is not only invited, but in fact compelled, to become involved in many activities outside the House.
February 24, 1975

To conclude, I say those who, like myself, want the party now forming the government to be not just a Liberal Party in name but a party of Liberals in policy orientation and action should be concerned about what the hon. member, who after all is parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, appears to be arguing in his question of privilege.
If there is any group which should believe that the encouragement of wide-ranging and constructive discussion, not just of issues but of legislation as well, is fundamental to its principles, that group should be the Liberal Party. I say that all of us in that party who are sitting in this House, and those who support it across the country, should be diligent in seeing that the right of the member of parliament to engage in that kind of discussion is not abridged under the guise of protecting it. In our work for the people of our ridings and the people of Canada, there are times when we must speak in committees of caucus and other groups in which our work is most appropriately carried out under roles of confidentiality and solidarity. But, Mr. Speaker, there are other times when we must express our views publicly when we speak in whatever setting, in whatever forum we consider most appropriate if those organizing the meeting are willing to hear us.
This is the way I see myself carrying out my duties for the people of my riding and our country. I urge that this question of privilege be rejected in order to further confirm the validity of the kind of role I have outlined, not just for myself but for all members of this House who are striving to work in the interests of all the people of their ridings and all the people of Canada.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) was speaking, I heard some members behind me saying, "This man should be in the government". I say no, he has been too honest, too frank and shows too much ability to be in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The parliamentary secretary launched his attack in an attempt to recoup the ground he lost some time ago. He lost it when in a moment of honest exasperation he launched an attack against ministers. Now he attempts to work his way back into the favour of the ministry and I must assume that he spoke with the knowledge and approval of the government House leader and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). If they disapprove of what he said, they will say so. If they say nothing, I take it that they not only countenance what the parliamentary secretary said, but initiated the move which he made today.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: There is only stony silence on the government benches.


Gerald William Baldwin: What we have heard today is the first chapter of the book "Reid on How to Muzzle Ex-cabinet Ministers". Considering the reaction we have obtained, I suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who appears not to be paying attention but who I know is listening closely, should fire other cabinet ministers. Heaven only knows what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) might say about financial questions, the Minister
Privilege-Mr. Reid
of Transport (Mr. Marchand) about transportation, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) about some of the problems he has encountered. What a great parliament this would be, Mr. Speaker, if these ministers made forthright, frank and honest statements. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) might really tell us what he knows about energy.


Mr. Dinsdale:: That would be a short speech.


Gerald William Baldwin: We could hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) speak on eggs. What a revelation that would be.
Having disposed of these preliminaries, let me say that I associate myself with the cogent, learned and intelligent remarks to which we just listened by the hon. member for Windsor West. The parliamentary secretary's argument respecting the rules of this House, of the other place and of the English parliament only apply when there is a need to demand compulsory attendance of a member in the other place. There should not be and must not be anything in our rules which in any way provides that a member of this place or of the other place shall not appear voluntarily as a witness before a committee dealing with a bill or any subject. A member should be free to give any such committee the benefit of his advice.
Election to this House should not preclude our being called as witnesses or at least appearing voluntarily before committees of the other place and giving those committees the benefit of our experience. Any suggestion to the contrary should not be countenanced, and surely Your Honour will not accept such arguments. I suggest that the rules which have been quoted provide, under certain conditions, for compulsory attendance. For example, if the parliamentary secretary were called as a witness before a committee of the other place and he did not wish to attend, there are certain ways in which his attendance might be compelled. On the other hand, I suggest it would be completely wrong to say that a member of this House should not have the right to appear before a committee.
Ministers appear regularly. Ministers sponsoring bills or wishing to introduce white papers and green papers which are discussed in the other place appear before committees of the other place and give their reasons for sponsoring what they are doing. If they can appear before a committee and speak in support of a bill, why in the name of heaven cannot a member of the opposition or even a member on the government side speak against the bill and oppose it?
For these reasons, as well as the other cogent reasons advanced by the hon. member for Windsor West, I urge Your Honour to throw this matter out of the window as far as it can possibly be thrown.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few things which the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) said in his defence which might well be commented on initially. First, the hon. member seemed to be in some doubt as to whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) had given the proper and necessary notice. I take it that since Your Honour recognized the hon. member on

February 24, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Reid
this question of privilege, he must have met the rule in this connection.
In the second place, I notice that the hon. member for Windsor West, like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), was concerned about the quoting of rules which apply in the parliament at Westminster. I submit we do not need to fall back on any of the traditions and procedures of that parliament, but that the rules and practice of our own parliament are a sufficient guide to us in a case of this kind. The third thing the hon. member for Windsor West said in his own defence was that a member of this House, even after a matter had been decided by the House, surely had the right to keep an issue alive. All I can say is this: surely the Senate is the last place one would go in an attempt to keep an issue alive!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My main concern about the action of the hon. member for Windsor West and any others who might like to imitate him arises from the fact that my hon. friends and I believe in democracy. We believe in the authority of this House because we are elected by the people to concern ourselves with the affairs of the country, and for an elected member to go to plead his case against this House before a non-elected body is, I submit, a denial of the principle of democracy. I hope that other hon. members who believe they have a right to follow suit will think twice before they do so.
It is no secret that I do not regard the Senate as having moral authority in our parliamentary system, and it is because my hon. friends and I take this view that we think it is wrong to have dealings with that House or its committees in the manner indicated by the hon. member for Windsor West. The hon. member commented that if it was wrong for him to go over there, why was it wrong for a minister to appear on the floor of the Senate or before a Senate committee. The hon. member is a lawyer and I am surprised he does not appear to be aware that there is a Standing Order of the other place permitting ministers to appear on the floor of the Senate or before Senate committees. But there is no rule or any formal arrangement for private members to go over there. My hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), in his usual profound and succinct way, has just stated the whole case by saying: "It was dumb for him to go". When this parliament was set up-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Would the hon. member permit a question? A few moment ago he referred to a Standing Order of the Senate. Do I understand that a man with his view of the Senate is citing an order of the Senate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to find that my view of the Senate is well known. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that even though I have no use for the Senate as an institution, I have the right to ask the Senate to abide by its own rules.


Mr. Fairweather:: In support of your own weak
argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rules of the Senate are definite enough when prescribing the conditions under which its own members and staff may come to this House. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River read from Standing Order 104, to be found on page 50 of the latest edition of the rules of the other place. This is not something out of the Middle Ages; this bears the date December, 1969. This is what the other place has set down in its rules regarding members of that place who come over here without permission of the Senate. I shall not read the whole of the Standing Order. I like this one, though:
104(3) Without such leave, a senator, officer, clerk or servant of the Senate shall not, on any account, under penalty of being committed to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod or to prison during the pleasure of the Senate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -go down to the House of Commons, or send his answer in writing, or by counsel to answer any accusation there.
Note, they always put it that way-"go down to the House of Commons": they do not say "go over". If that is the attitude of the Senate toward one of its own members coming over here, I suggest the Senate should treat our members in the same way and not invite them to go over there. There is, of course, the rule which provides that a minister of the Crown may appear over there. But there are no rules which provide for individual members of this House to go to the other place.
Our parliament was set up with the two Houses placed on a formal arm's length relationship to each other. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has cited Standing Order 22 of our rules and Standing Order 50 of the Senate rules. I do not wish or need to repeat them. These are the rules which provide for the course to be followed when there is disagreement between the two Houses. That disagreement has to be a disagreement between the Houses as such; we take our decision here, they take their decision there, and when we do not agree there are arrangements for messages to be sent back and forth, for conferences, and so on. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what sort of chaos would we get into if every time a bill in this House is passed in the face of a considerable body of objection, all of those in this chamber who do not like it were to traipse over there-


An hon. Member:: That is up to the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We in our
party won't do it because we have no use for the other place. But am I to understand that if the Conservatives vote against clause 4 of Bill C-49 when it comes before us this afternoon, and if they lose and the bill carries with that particular clause in it, every one of the 95 Conservatives would try to go to the Senate or appear before a Senate committee to try to get their Honours to agree that the view of the House of Commons was wrong?
The right to appear before the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Bar Association or any of these
February 24, 1975

other associations, to go out on the hustings, to go on radio and television, write letters to the editor, make speeches, all of that certainly is part of the right of a member of parliament to try to keep an issue alive, but I suggest that to try to keep it alive by going to the morgue at the other end of this building is to deny the whole proposition that we are part of a democratic society.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We seem to be complaining about an action which has been taken by a member of this House. I do not blame him if he feels inclined to find a way to press his ideas. I just think he chose the wrong way. He is a very capable member and has shown this very clearly, especially since he left the cabinet. I hope he will keep on doing it. But I do not regard his judgment as very sound in deciding that that is the best way to try to advance his cause. We seem to be criticizing the hon. member for Windsor West, but I rise mainly to criticize the other place. I think the members of the Senate have no right, knowing the rules they have in their books-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -knowing the rules that are in both our books providing for formal relationships between the two Houses, either to invite the hon. member over or to consent to his going over. This short-circuit procedure gets around all the established arrangements. I agree there are not as many rules as one might look for either in their Standing Orders or in ours, or in Beauchesne, but it is clear that the arrangements between the two Houses are on a formal basis. When an individual member of this House or of the other place goes to the other House to try to say that the decision made in his own House is wrong, that is in violation of the way that these two places work. On top of that, my main point is that I do not think it is appropriate for any member of this democratically elected body to go pleading his case before an unelected and unrepresentative body such as the Senate of Canada.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of privilege on which you are being asked to rule has in my opinion serious implications for private members of this House and for the future of the committee systems both of the other place and of this House.
I listened with a good deal of interest to the argument of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I must say I agree with him that the rules in the two Houses should be parallel with regard to the appearance of a member of one House before a committee or any other emanation of the other House. But there is one matter on which I fundamentally disagree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. His views on the Senate are very well known, but I do not think they should colour the approach to a rational division of labour between the various committees of the Senate and those of this House.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) attempted to make a distinction in his remarks. He said
Privilege-Mr. Reid
that he thought it would be in order for members of this place to appear before certain types of committees of the other place. He referred to the committee on the mass media and the committee on poverty, and said that it would not, in his opinion, be proper for members of this place to appear before Senate committees dealing with matters which might come, in the ordinary course of events, before a committee of this place. Such a distinction would be almost impossible to administer, and in my opinion would be meaningless. Certainly the wide-ranging activities of the committee on poverty could well anticipate legislation which would arise in this place.
There is one even more fundamental matter which I hope Your Honour will consider. For example, there is in existence today a committee of the other place looking at cannabis legislation. I understand there are members of the House of Commons who have views on the subject and would like to testify; if I am wrong in this respect, I have been misinformed. In my opinion, it is only fair and proper that an opportunity to give what might be lengthy testimony should be afforded members of parliament if they seek permission in the proper way to appear before the other place, in which case it should be granted.
We are all seeking today to make the committee system work. It is overburdened and encumbered with work. There are conflicts arising over time of meetings, there are difficulties in getting the attendance of members in different places. When a committee structure exists in both the Senate and in this House, and there is a means by which some rational, informal division of labour regarding hearings in the early stage of legislation can take place, then it seems to me prudent that the rules should permit the members of this House to appear before the other place.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this question of privilege, because it has just been stated that the standing orders of the House of Commons are not similar to the Standing rules of the Senate.
It is understandable, Mr. Speaker. If the democratically elected members were not allowed to act freely at the government level, if within a party, as several people have suggested, a dictatorship would prevent a member from acting as the people's representative, democracy would be hindered.
It is not so as far as the Senate is concerned, Mr. Speaker. Restrictions can be laid down in the Senate. It has been pointed out that the consent of the Senate is absolutely necessary to testify before a committee of the House of Commons. Indeed, senators are not elected, but they are political appointees. Thus the Senate can be entrusted with some duties. The politicians can summon the senators, who are not democratically elected but are appointed as a political reward. This can explain the difference between the standing orders of the two Houses.
To prevent a member or a minister from testifying before a Senate committee would merely be an impediment to democratic freedom, because a backbencher is as democratically elected as a minister or the prime minister and he should thus be also entitled to testify before those committees.

February 24, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Reid
Such is the difference which I wanted to point out between the standing orders of the House of Commons and the standing rules of the Senate. I think that members of this House are democratically elected while Senators are political appointees.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that almost daily, in one way or another, we are talking about matters relating to our procedures prior to the question period. It is getting to the point where much of the time of this House is being taken up with matters relating to the rules of the House. Unless we want to waste all our time in this chamber talking on points of order, points of procedure and questions of privilege, something will have to be done, and done quickly, to remedy the situation. At the same time, I think this House owes the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) a debt of gratitude for having brought before the House one of the really key issues concerning any parliament, one that goes to the heart of this parliament-that is, freedom of speech.
Any time we hear a parliamentary secretary raising a question of privilege, he is speaking on behalf of the government, indicating the government's point of view. In this particular instance he was indicating the government's approach to the rules and to the procedures of this House, and he indicated that when discussions take place before a committee, a very hard line will be taken by the government to gag members, no matter what party they belong to, on whatever issue they wish to speak. They will be prevented from putting forward their points of view on anything that is of value and significance to the Canadian people and to the development of this nation.
One of the points that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River seems to ignore is that we are members of parliament and that parliament consists of two Houses, not of one. It consists of this House and the one the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wishes to ignore, degrade or eliminate if possible. Whatever the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre feels about the other place, I want to tell him that he is much better when he rises to his feet to argue, in this tribune of the people, for freedom of speech than when he is trying to gag a member who wants to put his point of view before the Canadian people on matters of interest to the Canadian public.
We in this chamber should do everything in our power to see that the public is kept fully aware of every member's point of view on every piece of legislation, no matter whether he be in this or some other chamber. Further, the government has indicated on more than one occasion in this parliament that it intends to initiate more legislation in the other chamber. Therefore, that chamber should be aware of the particular points of view of its members, especially those with expertise in a certain area.
I do not think I have to go into the merits of the matter since the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) did that so well. I suggest we should support his remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There have been many contributions of great value to this interesting point. The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) was allowed some latitude in talking about support of freedom of speech as opposed to the technical question in respect of which we really are dealing, but I would hesitate to allow other members to debate that subject as well. In spite of the importance of that topic and the fundamental principles it involves, we are really dealing here with a procedural question. There have been some interesting parallels drawn, but the fact of the matter is that there seem to be two questions involved. The first question is whether there is anything in the regulations of this House or its precedents to prevent the action which has been discussed, that is a member appearing before a committee of the other House. The second point is, if that is not so does such an appearance constitute such an affront to this Chamber it ought to be considered a question of privilege, or ought to be prevented in some way. Basically, those are the two questions involved.
If other hon. members want to contribute, I hope they will confine themselves to those questions. Otherwise, I would propose to reserve on the matter and deliver judgment as soon as I can put together all the precedents and regulations that have been cited.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have just one point to add to my support of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Apparently he was thinking only of the 124 members of the opposition who might want to run to the Senate committee to present their points of view.
In the case of Bill C-29, which is the subject that gave rise to this particular matter, I have done considerable work, but because of a conflict of committee commitments I was unable to appear before the justice committee. I accepted the decision of this House when that bill was given third reading. I suggest that is the issue; whether we do or do not, as members, accept a majority decision of this House.
When the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) appeared before the Senate committee, I applied to appear before that same committee to present a contrary argument. The issue before us is not just whether members of the opposition should fly to the Senate to plead their arguments, but whether any of us should go to plead the arguments we were supposed to plead before our own standing committees of this House.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I will try to follow your stricture about narrowing the focus, and plead guilty to appearing informally before a Senate committee last week. I regret that I did not think it necessary to call the member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) to ascertain whether he would give me permission. The issue before the foreign affairs committee of the Senate last week was that of international relations, in particular having to do with provinces and states, and how they get together under the umbrella of the accords of the national governments of our respective countries.
February 24, 1975

Conflict of Interest POST OFFICE
As I have had a little bit of experience in doing that for New Brunswick and the State of Maine, I was invited to attend. I listened to Premier Richard Hatfield, who I do not think called the member for Kenora-Rainy River either to see whether he could appear, and I thought with great respect to Premier Hatfield he covered the issue very well. However, should the Senate feel there is something more I could say about this particular issue I would be glad to go again.
There are many precedents for this. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), for example, when he was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development invited many members of parliament to initiate action before the commissions having to do with national parks development plans. It was at the minister's own invitation that members of parliament appeared before commissions in various parts of the country, giving their points of view, without in any way being inhibited by any strange rule.
I really thought today that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) got a little bit mixed. With great respect to him, he has well-known views about the Senate, but they have nothing to do with members of parliament using whatever avenue is at their disposal. The CRTC, a non-elected group, often receives representations, I would hope, from members of parliament. I have appeared before the CRTC asking for improved television in northeastern New Brunswick, for example, and there was no thought at all about infringing the rules of this parliament. I agree with the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that this involves using whatever avenues exist, be they the Senate, the CRTC, boards or commissions or, strangely enough, once in awhile this very Chamber in which we are debating this issue today.


INFORMATION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, because the 28 per cent increase in federal government expenditures in one year demands urgent action by parliament to control spending, and because one of the most outlandish expenditures is the amount spent on maintaining 863 information officers, plus the money spent on contracts with freelance speech writers, public relations consultants and advertising agencies, I move under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the whole subject of government expenditures on information be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and that this committee be instructed to report to parliament on what is the total amount of such expenditures, since without this over-view there will be no way of controlling profligate promotion.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE DELIVERY OF MAIL BY SETTING STRIKE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
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, namely the fact that business establishments across Canada are suffering due to curtailment of the postal service, in particular small businesses, the backbone of our economy, which depend wholly on regular mail delivery, and their very existence is now being jeopardized by postal walkouts. For the sake of our economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the government, through the President of the Treasury Board and/or the Postmaster General, request the post office members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada to begin immediately and continue delivery of all business mail, or force the return of the over-all mail delivery by introducing back to work legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion being presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek leave of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 arising from a statement by a member of the staff in the Prime Minister's office early in January to the effect that guidelines would be issued in respect of possible conflicts of interest by the acceptance of gifts before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) left on his European trip.


An hon. Member:: What is his name?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I wish I knew his name, but the Prime Minister's staff has always hidden behind anonymity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the House requests the Prime Minister and the government to make public in this House, as promised before the Prime Minister leaves this week on his European trip, conflict of interest guidelines in regard to gifts received by, or offered to, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet and their wives.
3480

February 24, 1975
Estimates


Mr. Speaker:: The motion being moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter concerns the irresponsible and embarrassing attitude of Canadian airlines and ministry of transport officials toward the enforcement of air safety regulations.
In view of the fact that it has now been publicly disclosed that the apparent slogan governing the actions of Canadian airlines and DOT officials towards the implementation and enforcement of air safety standards is "safety doesn't sell tickets"-an attitude which implicity endangers the well-being of the Canadian air travelling public-and because the federal Ministry of Transport has been reported as incapable of administering safety regulations and prefers to "look the other way" when these rules are ignored I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House do now authorize the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to inquire into and make recommendations on the implementation of Canadian air safety regulations, and that the minister be instructed to immediately take the necessary steps to improve this situation, with a view to ensuring the safety of the Canadian air travelling public.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, surely his description of the general situation as opposed to a specific incident of urgent and pressing necessity would disqualify his motion under the Standing Order.


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1975-76 REFERENCE OF ITEMS TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion pursuant to Standing Order 59 which refers the estimates to the several standing committees of the House. It is a very long motion that has been in the hands of members of the opposition for a few days, and I believe is in the hands of the Clerk at the Table. Perhaps I might, therefore, avoid reading it and simply point out one or two changes of substance that might help the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that, as suggested by the President of the Privy Council, the motion be tabled as read and printed in Hansard.'!


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The motion above referred to is as follows:] Motion Pursuant to Standing Order 59 That the Estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House, as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65
To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts:
Communications Votes 1, 5, L10 and 15 Labour Vote 10
Secretary of State Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, L80, 85, 90, 95, 100, L105 and LI 10
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence: External Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30, L35 and 40 National Defence Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs: Finance Votes 1, 5, 10, 20 and 25
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25, L30, L35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65
National Revenue Votes 1 and 5 Privy Council Vote 20
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, 25, 30 and 35 To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
National Health and Welfare Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60
Urban Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, 25, 30 and L35
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, L50, L55, L60, 65, 70, 75 and L80
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Solicitor General Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration: Labour Votes 1 and 5
Manpower and Immigration Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Finance Vote 15
Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors Vote 1 Parliament Votes 1, 5 and 10 Privy Council Votes 1, 5, 15 and 25
Science and Technology Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 Secretary of State Vote 115 Supply and Services Votes 1, 5, L10, 15, 20 and 25 Treasury Board Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
February 24, 1975

Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, L45, L50, 55, 60, 65 and 70
Public Works Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections:
Privy Council Vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30 and L35 To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Post Office Votes 1 and 5
Transport Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, L35, 40, 45, 50, L55, 60, L65, L70, L75, 80, 85, 90, L95, L100, 105 and 110 To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 Mr. Sharp: For the guidance of members, may I say that in substance the motion is the same as in previous years with two exceptions. It is proposed that all Department of Communications estimates now go to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts which formerly received only the CRTC part of the estimates, and that parliament's estimates be designated the miscellaneous estimates so that the procedure committee can proceed with the reference that was approved the other day.
In form, there are some slight differences. For example, Vote 10 relating to the Chief Electoral Officer would now be Privy Council Vote 10. In other words, the chapter headings from the blue book are used. This will make it easier for members and committee personnel to find the items.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are quite agreeable to this procedure, but I want to repeat the reservation I uttered last Friday that this is done without prejudice to our right to continue to urge that we may hopefully make this House a better, livelier and brighter place by bringing back to the House from time to time some of the estimates. Negotiations are going on now which I hope will end with this result. I just want to say that the motion, to which we agree, is contingent-and I cannot propose that it be made a rule because there can be no amendment-upon the fact that the government and the other parties are willing to work out an agreement of this kind, which I think will be in the interest of the House, of the people, and of the passage of supply by this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to this motion on the same terms. In other words, it is already settled that we will have a meeting tomorrow to discuss the arrangements suggested by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the government House leader if he is prepared to give the House an assurance because of the provisions of Standing Order 58(14) which reads:
... Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year.
This applies to the examination of the estimates. Because of the provisions of the Standing Order, and because of the fact that we have in front of us now more than $28 billion worth of estimates, I think the House is
Immigration
entitled to have some assurance from the government,- when we consider, for example, that we have barely two months left in which to examine these estimates and many of the standing committees of the House are now charged with a fairly heavy legislative program-that each committee will be given ample time to examine the estimates so as to ensure that no committee will be charged with examining the estimates one week before cut-off time; and second, that ministers of the House will attend the committees' meetings so that committees may examine ministers on questions of policy which heretofore has not been possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the President of the Privy Council proposes to make any comment on that question, I should point out to hon. members that Standing Order 59, under which the motion is being put, reads as follows:
A motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, may be moved ...
I know of no other interpretation of the procedure we are proposing to follow by allowing questions of the minister except that it would constitute some sort of debate. If the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) proposes to make some comment at this stage, I would like to make it perfectly clear that there is no machinery whereby, without the unanimous consent of the House, we can open up the subject for debate at this time.
I allowed the two House leaders of the opposition parties to indicate, in the usual way, that they were prepared to accept the motion. This is customary and permissible. However, I should make it quite clear that I have no power to open up the matter for debate. This motion will have to be passed without debate or amendment.


Mitchell William Sharp: Having in mind your comments that we should not participate in a debate, may I assure the hon. member that so far as ministers are concerned I have warned them that they are to consider this their first priority so that they can attend the committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion put forward by the President of the Privy Council and under those terms agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
February 21, 1975-The President of the Privy Council-the following proposed motion:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider the green paper on immigration policy tabled by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the House of Commons on February 3, 1975; and to invite the views of the public on the issues raised therein;
3482
[Stage Direction]
February 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions
That 15 members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date be members on the part of this House on the Special Joint Committee;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of advisers to assist in its work; and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required;
That the committee submit their report not later than July 31, 1975;
That the quorum of the committee be 12 members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when 6 members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be	answered today:	Nos.	241, 351, 483, 519,1,054, 1,055,	1,056,	1,057, 1,058, 1,059,	1060,	1,061,	1,062,	1,063,1,064, 1,065,	1,066,	1,067, 1,068, 1,069,	1,070,	1,071,	1,072,	1,073,1,074, 1,075,	1,076,	1077, 1,078, 1,137,	1,218,	1,229,	1,230,	1,239,
1,258, 1,262, 1,264, 1,281, 1,299, 1,311, 1,313, 1,315, and 1,366.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 428, 728, 975, and 1,186 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Ivan Head, Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, make a statement to members of the Press on Wednesday, September 25, 1974 to the effect that Canada will pursue an activist left wing role in foreign affairs?
2.	Did the Prime Minister make a statement to the Press on Tuesday, October 1, 1974 to the effect that it is "pure fiction" that Canada will pursue an activist left wing role in foreign affairs?

3.	Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a statement in an interview with newspaperman Duart Farquharson confirming that Canada will pursue an activist left wing role in foreign affairs?
4.	What are all the reasons for these apparent discrepancies?
5.	Will the Prime Minister, Mr. Ivan Head and the Secretary of State for External Affairs be meeting together in the near future for the purpose of arriving at an agreed on foreign policy for Canada and, if so, will this policy be, or will it not be, an activist left wing role in foreign affairs?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	In the light of the answers to Parts 1, 2 and 3, Part 4 is non-applicable.
5.	Part 5, like Part 4, is non-applicable.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many persons from France attended universities in Canada from the years 1964 to 1973 in lieu of serving in military service in France (a) as students (b) as members of the staff or faculty?
2.	How many persons from France are attending universities in Canada as members of the staff or faculty or as students in lieu of serving in military service in France?
3.	At what universities did the persons mentioned in Parts 1 and 2 attend?
4.	What were the numbers in attendance in each of the years 1964 to 1973 at the respective Canadian universities?
5.	What (a) financial assistance (b) other assistance was rendered by the government to carry out this programme and, in each case, what was the total cost for each of the years 1963 to 1973 inclusive?
6.	What other countries have similar arrangements?
7.	What department of government and which Ministers are responsible for the conduct and operation of such programmes?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Persons entering Canada temporarily as a result of a cultural agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Province of Quebec must simply fulfil the immigration requirements appropriate to their category of entry. The Department of Manpower and Immigration treats each entrant as an individual case, therefore no group information or statistics are available for persons related to this agreement.
5.	The Department of Manpower and Immigration provides no financial assistance in this regard.
6.	The Government of Canada has no similar agreements with any country.
7.	The Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned with this program only insofar as ensuring that individual members meet the appropriate immigration requirements.
February 24, 1975


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total number of government employees working in Hull, Quebec and in the surrounding counties at the end of the fiscal year (a) March 31, 1968 (b) March 31, 1974?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) 2,095; (b) 4,769.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has Canada imported any butter during the first eight months of
Imports of Butter-January to August 1974
Order Paper Questions
1974 and, if so, how many pounds were imported and in which months?
2.	(a) From which countries were the imports made (b) how many pounds were imported from each country (c) what was the price per pound?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1 and 2. Imports of butter into Canada during the first eight months of 1974 amounted to 24,949,700 pounds for a value of $13,505,000. A further breakdown of these totals by country of consignment by month is provided on the attached table.
re
Month	Country	Quantity (lbs.)	Value (1)	Unit PricJanuary	New Zealand	3,333,400	1,933,000	*0.58United States	392,000	241,000	0.61Total	3,725,400	2,174,000	0.58February	Ireland	253,600	127,000	0.50Australia	5,812,000	3,084,000	0.53New Zealand	2,222,200	1,165,000	0.52T otal	8,287,000	4,376,000	0.53March	Ireland	35,700	21,000	0.59April	Australia	4,479,700	2,521,000	0.56May	United States	235,200	104,000	0.44June	nil	nil	nil	nilJuly	Finland	1,572,200	770,000	0.49Sweden	2,204,500	1,059,000	0.48Total	3,776,700	1,830,000	0.48August	Sweden	4,409,200	2,480,000	0.56Cumulative Totals-	-January to August 1974	Ireland	289,300	148,000	0.51Finland	1,572,200	770,000	0.49Sweden	6,613,700	3,540,000	0.54Australia	10,291,700	5,604,000	0.55New Zealand	5,555,600	3,098,000	0.56United States	627,200	344,000	0.55Total	24,949,700	13,505,000	0.54
On account of rounding, individual differences may arise between totals and sums of constituent items.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Waltham Creative Printing of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Govern-

Order Paper Questions
ment Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on August 16, 1971. (b) The amount of the offer was $113,100. (c) The offer contemplated 24 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	No payments were made.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company never started the project.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Valewood Products Ltd. of Renfrew, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on February 4, 1971. (b) The amount of the offer was $171,675. (c) The offer contemplated 57 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $132,490 on September 9, 1971.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company was declared bankrupt in November, 1972.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Union Carbide Canada of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what

amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the Company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the applicant of January 20, 1972. (b) The amount of the offer was $126,750. (c) The offer contemplated 69 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $45,384 in June, 1974.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The facility is a going concern. Dow Badische Company now operates the facility.
5.	The facility has approximately 70 employees.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Step-Lite Manufacturing of Renfrew, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on October 15, 1971. (b) The amount of the incentive was $216,725. (c) The offer contemplated 88 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer has now been changed to $192,604.
2.	The company received $72,294 in August, 1972.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes

only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company ceased operations in January, 1973.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Spindler Furniture of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on September 26, 1972. (b) The offer amounted to $103,050. (c) The offer contemplated 45 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was changed to $98,550.
2.	The company received $48,957 on July 6, 1973 and $31,812 on March 11, 1974.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company encountered financial difficulties but has been re-organized and is now operating at anticipated levels, under the new name, Arnprior Furniture Manufacturing Co. Ltd. The original investors no longer have control of the company.
5.	The company now has 45 employees.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Renfrew Machinery of Renfrew, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
Order Paper Questions
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on July 25, 1973. (b) The amount of the offer was $445,600. (c) The offer contemplated 56 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	No payment has yet been made.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company has not yet established continued commercial production. The original investors still have control.
5.	Employment levels are approximately 25.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to R.E. Hodgins Industry of Renfrew, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on October 20, 1970. (b) The amount of the offer was $79,200. (c) The offer contemplated 13 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $66,624 in April, 1972.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.

February 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions
4.	The company is a going concern. The original investors still have control.
5.	The company now has 15 employees.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Quexoil Ltd. of Cobden, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on April 2, 1971. (b) The amount of the offer was $51,000. (c) The offer contemplated 30 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $42,960 in November, 1972.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company recently ceased operations to arrange a re-organization plan. The original investors still have control.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Qualicon Concrete of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an

offer of incentives assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on January 3, 1974. (b) The amount of the offer was $67,750. (c) The offer contemplated 23 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	No payment has yet been made.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is expected to reach commercial production in December 1974. The original investors still have control.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Playtex Ltd. of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on February 6, 1974. (b) The amount of the offer was $200,595. (c) The offer contemplated 79 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	No payments have yet been made.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report on The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The project is nearing completion. The original investors still have control.
5.	Not applicable.
February 24, 1975


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Nortrac Manufacturing of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on November 8, 1971. (b) The amount of the offer was $75,700. (c) The offer contemplated 32 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $58,189 in April, 1972.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company ceased operations in 1974.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Noranda Metal Industries of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on March 11, 1974. (b) The amount of the offer was $2,203,700. (c) The offer contem-
Order Paper Questions
plated 100 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	No payment has yet been made.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only, based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The facility is under construction. The original investors still have control.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Magline of Canada Ltd. of Renfrew, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on November 1, 1972. (b) The amount of this offer was $61,500. (c) The offer contemplated 18 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $51,540 in April, 1974.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is a going concern. The original investors still have control.
5.	The company now has 12 employees working on this new product/expansion.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd. of Renfrew Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what

February 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions
amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on June 30, 1972. (b) The amount of the offer was $404,250. (c) The offer contemplated 86 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $265,911 in March, 1974.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is a going concern. The original investors still have control.
5.	The company has 26 employees.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Hy-Hoe Corporation Ltd. of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on January 10, 1973. (b) The amount of the offer was $303,600. (c) The offer contemplated 38 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer is subject to change.
2.	The company received $204,245 in March, 1974.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes

only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of the Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is in receivership but negotiations are underway to ensure continued operation. The company is now under the control of a receiver.
5.	The level of employment is fluctuating at present.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Hanson Mills Ltd. of Renfrew, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes an
offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on August 16, 1971. (b) The amount of the offer was $39,686. (c) The offer contemplated 24 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $5,373 in February 1972 and $24,960 in July 1972.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On the Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is a going concern. The original investors still have control of the company.
5.	The company now has 32 employees.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Haley Industries Ltd. of Haley Station, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
February 24, 1975

3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on October 12, 1973. (b) The amount of the offer was $130,887. (c) The offer contemplated 48 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	No payment has yet been made.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is just starting commercial production. The original investors still have control.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Gomes Yarns Ltd. of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on March 21, 1972. Applicant's name was then Jari Industries Ltd. (b) The amount of the offer was $145,965. (c) The offer contemplated 44 news jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The offer was amended in November, 1972, the amount of the offer being reduced to $98,765 and the name of the applicant being changed to Gomes Yarns Ltd.
2.	No payment has yet been made.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to
Order Paper Questions
page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company has not started commercial production.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Gary Wilson Tire Service of Renfrew, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on September 28, 1972. (b) The amount of the offer was $21,969. (c) The offer contemplated six new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The offer was amended in March, 1973 to $13,498.
2.	The company received $12,418 in October, 1973.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is a going concern. The original investors still have control.
5.	This is an expansion project but more than six new jobs have been created.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Educational Fitment of Whitelake, Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?

February 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on October 23, 1974. (b) The amount of the offer was $35,830. (c) The offer contemplated nine new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	No payment has yet been made.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The facility is under construction. The original investors still have control.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Educational Fitment of Renfrew, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


M. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the applicant on September-7, 1971. (b) The amount of the offer was $42,290. (c) The offer contemplated 9 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $26,583 in October 1972.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this bill will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company was destroyed by fire in March 1974.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Chase Nuclear (Canada) of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on October 26, 1973. (b) The amount of the offer was $496,500. (c) The offer contemplated 33 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	No payment has yet been made.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The facility is still under construction. The original investors still have control.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Acme Seeley Ltd. of Renfrew, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the orginal private investors still have control:
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a)

February 24, 1975

An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on March 12, 1971. (b) The amount of the offer was $862,850. (c) The offer contemplated 137 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $592,998 in March, 1972.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is a going concern. The original investors still have control.
5.	The company now has 170 employees.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Hypernetics Ltd. of Arnprior, Ontario, in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Applicant on April 6, 1972. (b) The amount of this offer was $136,600. (c) The offer contemplated 55 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $96,222 in April, 1974.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is a going concern. The original investors still have control.
5.	The company now has 13 employees.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant made to Edwin D. Kennedy Lumber of Waba, Ontario, in the constituency of
Order Paper Questions
Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what amount was the offer (c) how many jobs did the offer contemplate (d) was the offer accepted (e) did the amount of the offer change and, if so, what was the new amount?
2.	How much has been paid to the Company and on what dates?
3.	Of the total capital invested in the new enterprise, what percentage was private capital and, of this, what percentage was (a) in equity (b) debt financing?
4.	Is the Company now a going concern, in receivership or did it go bankrupt and, if a going concern, do the original private investors still have control?
5.	How many employees does the Company now have?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes, an offer of incentive assistance was made to the company, (a) An Agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the Government of Canada and the applicant on March 17, 1971. (b) The amount of the offer was $132,950. (c) The offer contemplated 21 new jobs, (d) The offer was accepted, (e) The amount of the offer was not changed.
2.	The company received $115,310 in March 1972.
3.	Details on the company's financing and debt/equity position are supplied to DREE for evaluation purposes only based on an understanding with the company that this will be treated as confidential information. Refer to page 4, Report On The Operation Of The Regional Development Incentives Act and On Special Area Incentives.
4.	The company is a going concern. The original investors still have control.
5.	The company has 21 employees but may cut back due to the slump in the lumber market.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Are any departments, other than the Department of Transport, presently engaged in charging on their over-due accounts an annual interest-penalty representing 120 per cent of the unpaid accounts and, if so (a) which ones (b) on what dates were these rates established?
2.	Are any agencies, departments or other bodies established by the Crown presently engaged in charging a monthly penalty of 10 per cent as is the case with the National Harbours Board as indicated in answer to Question No. 455, on accounts unpaid and, if so, which ones?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed as follows: 1 and 2. No.


Mr. Rondeau: 1.	From 1964 to date, how many persons were hired to fill (a) new positions (b) vacancies in each department and Crown corporation?
2.	How many of these were previously employed in the field of journalism?
3.	What is (a) the date of employment (b) the name (c) the annual salary and expense allowance (d) the type of employment of such persons mentioned in Part 2?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government does not maintain records which would

February 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions
enable it to trade the subsequent careers of those who at one time were employed in the field of journalism. In order to answer this question, it would be necessary to review the personal files of every individual employed in the Public Service of Canada. In view of the workload involved, the government does not feel justified in undertaking such a review.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the Canadian Pacific Railway commuter service along the Lakeshore from Montreal sustain heavy losses?
2.	Is this commuter service subsidized by any government body or is the loss borne 100 per cent by CP Rail?
3.	What steps are being considered in the form of legislation, subsidy or other means to improve the service so as to encourage greater use of public transportation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Yes. The service is not subsidized by any government body; the loss is borne 100 per cent by CP Rail.
Ministry of Transport advises as follows: During the summer of 1974 the government announced a capital assistance program designed to enable transit authorities to expand and upgrade their services to Canadian communities, thereby encouraging greater use of public transportation. Policy work on this initiative which encompass both commuter rail and urban transit systems is currently in its final stages.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	What are the annual individual budgets for the Canadian cultural centres in (a) London, England (b) Paris, France (c) Brussels, Belgium?
2.	If there is a difference between the budgets allocated to these centres, what is the reason?
3.	Is the hand-out literature in all three centres bilingual and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The budgets for the 1974-75 fiscal year of the above centres mentioned are: (a) London, $97,800; (b) Paris, $130,000; (c) Brussels, $15,000.
2.	The Cultural Centre in Paris was established in a building separate from the Embassy in 1970 and has a developing programme which includes concerts, art exhibitions, film presentations, seminars, etc. The Cultural and Information Centre in Brussels, which was created in 1974, is physically part of the Embassy Chancery, and consists of a multiple purpose room for art exhibitions, seminars, film screenings, etc., a music room and a library. The facilities are limited in size and the scope of the programme is modest. In London there is not yet a Cultural Centre as such. The facilities at present available at Canada House consist of a library and an art gallery which was established in the general reception area of the Chancery. Other programmes will be developed when additional space can be converted appropriately for concerts, film showings, lectures, seminars and the like.

3.	The hand-out literature of Canadian origin which is made available to all three locations is bilingual. The libraries concerned contain books in English and in French. Catalogues, releases, periodicals and news-letters produced locally are normally in the language or languages of the publics to which they are addressed.


Mr. Marshall: Has the Department of Transport (a) completed its Newfoundland Transportation Study of Harbours (b) consulted with the City of Corner Brook with regard to the report's findings (c) made the report available to the public?


Jean Marchand: The
ministry has no formal Transportation Study of Harbours in Newfoundland. We are presently holding discussions with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Province of Newfoundland and the city of Corner Brook with respect to undertaking a study of potential port development at Corner Brook. This study is expected to begin in April and be of about six months' duration.


Mr. Forrestall: What has been the total cost of peacekeeping in the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East in respect of Canadian activities to the end of 1974?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Department of National Defence had spent $23,487,282 on peacekeeping operations with the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East up to the end of 1974. In addition, the Department of External Affairs had contributed the sum of US $3,809,640 to the United Nations as Canada's assessed proportion of the costs of peacekeeping activities in the Middle East.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) How many RCMP officers were in the Province of Nova Scotia for (i) 1964 (ii) 1969 (iii) 1974 (b) what will the total be for 1975?
2.	For each of the above years, what has been the cost per man paid by (a) the government (b) the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. (i) 331; (ii) 409; (iii) 569; (iv) 596.
2. 1964/65: (a) $5,033; (b) $3,356; 1969/70: (a) $8,235; (b) $6,470; 1974/75: (a) $12,587; (b) $12,094; 1975/76: (a) $14,498; (b) $14,498 (Estimate).


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) How many RCMP officers are to be engaged in purely federal statute law enforcement by statute concerned where applicable (b) where are they to be based in Nova Scotia for 1975?
2.	(a) How many RCMP officers will be engaged in 1975 in provincial statute work, such as highway patrol, municipal policing etc., in the
February 24, 1975

Province of Nova Scotia for which the provincial government assumes partial or otherwise financial responsibility (b) in what localities and in what numbers are these men to be found?
3.	(a) What was the average cost for such officers for the last available period (b) what is the estimated cost per man in 1975 and, for each, what is the breakdown in dollar terms between the government and the Province of Nova Scotia?


William Warren Allmand: 1. (a) and
(b)
Commercial Fraud	Halifax 0	Sydney	Truro	Total 6Drugs	7	3	3	13Immigration & Passport	1	-	-	1Customs & Excise	6	2	-	8Migratory Birds Conv. Act.	2	-	-	2Others	17	-	-	17Total	39	5	3	472. (a) and (b) Provincial Policing	Halifax	109	Antigonish	9Chester	9	Guysborough	6Dartmouth	30	New Glasgow	19Kentville	16	Pansboro	2Kingston	5	Pugwash	3Sheet Harbour	3	Sherbrooke	2Windsor	8	Stewiacke	13Barrington Passage	5	Tatamagouche	3Bridgetown	9	Sydney	54Bridgewater	8	Arichat	2Digby	7	Baddeck	6Liverpool	5	Cheticamp	2Lunenburg	3	Glace Bay	7Meteghan River	4	Ingonish Beach	4Shelburne	5	Inverness	8Yarmouth	12	Port Hawkesbury 15	Truro	40	St. Peters	3Amherst	11	Total	447Municipal Policing	Windsor	5	Parrsboro	2Digby	3	Port Hawkesbury 6	Liverpool	4	Picton Town	6Antigonish	7	Total	333. (a) 1974/75	Provincial	Municipal	$24,681	$19,266.51	(b)	Per Capita Cost	Federal	ProvincialProvincial	$28,996 Per Capita Cost	$14,498	$14,498Municipal	$22,428.79	Municipal	Federal	For 1st 5 men For 6th and	$11,214.40	$11,214.39	additional men	$16,829.59	$5,599.20	
Order Paper Questions DREE-SUBSIDY TO PANOFLEX LTD


Mr. Allard: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion approved the granting of a subsidy to Panoflex Ltd., Rimouski, Que., in the constituency of Rimouski and, if so, (a) on what date was the offer made (b) what was the amount (c) how many jobs were involved (d) was the offer accepted (e) was the amount of the offer changed and, if so, to what amount?
2.	What amount was paid to the Company and on what date?
3.	What was the proportion of private capital invested in the Company and what percentage of such amount was paid-up capital?
4.	Is the Company in operation under seizure or bankruptcy and, if in operation, do the original investors from the private sector still control the Company?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. The
Department of Regional Economic Expansion authorized a development incentive to Pan-O-Flex Inc. under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act. (a) The offer was made on September 25, 1970; (b) The original amount offered was $31,195; (c) The creation of 16 jobs was forecast; (d) The offer was accepted on November 20, 1970; (e) The amount of the offer was subsequently lowered to $22,695 due to the company's decision not to proceed with the construction of a building.
2.	An amount of $17,606 was paid to the company on September 30, 1971 for which a claim has been submitted to the trustee in bankruptcy.
3.	The private capital committed to the enterprise at the time of the Department's payment was equivalent to 40 per cent of the total amount then invested. This private capital included both shareholder loans and paid-up equity, with the latter representing 21 per cent of total investment.
4.	The company was declared bankrupt on September 19, 1972. The trustee in bankruptcy has not yet been discharged.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Communications 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. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: In reply to the above mentioned question I submit the following answer: 1. (a)	1,635 employees; (b) 1,879
employees.
2. 1974: (a) 663; (b) 836; (c) 124; (d) 12; 1975: (a) 648; (b) 1,002; (c) 197; (d) 32.


Mr. Paproski: 1. How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Manpower and Immigration on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?

February 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions
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. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a) 9,947; (b) 11,116.
2. As of January 1, 1974: (a) 4,288; (b) 5,434; (c) 211; (d) 14; As of January 1, 1975: (a) 3,989; (b) 6,639; (c) 441; (d) 47.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Public Works 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. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a)
5,968; (b) 6,271.
2. 1974: (a) 4,268; (b) 1,452; (c) 204; (d) 44; 1975: (a) 3,557; (b) 2,253; (c) 416; (d) 45.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of National Revenue 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. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
(a) 19,403; (b) 20,471.
2. 1974: (a) 8,115; (b) 10,733; (c) 514; (d) 41; 1975: (a) 6,952; (b) 12,824; (c) 639; (d) 56.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Agriculture receive a letter dated January 3 from the Member of Parliament for Leeds on the subject of a claim for damages against the government by Davies Apiaries and, if so, has this letter been answered and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What action is the government taking to bring about immediate settlement of this long over due claim?
3.	Is the Minister aware of the difficulties being created for Davies Apiaries by the fact that the government has allowed many months to go by without settling this matter and will the government take immediate action to see that this taxpayer receives the attention to which he is entitled?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. See answer to Question 887. Inasmuch as the claim made by Davies Apiaries involves the question of legal liability of the Crown and an aerial spray company for the damages allegedly sustained by Davies Apiaries, it is considered that no further comments should be made pending judicial determination or a settlement of the claim.



Mr. Reid: What are the names of all agencies, boards, commissions, Crown corporations, presently in operation who report (a) to Parliament directly through a Cabinet Minister (b) to a Cabinet Minister through a Deputy Head?
Return tabled.


Mr. Herbert: Are public servants listing French as their mother tongue presently taking government sponsored training in the French language and, if so, how many such persons are there in the National Capital Region and what is the reasoning for giving such instruction?
Return tabled.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What are all the contributions provided by the government, including the Department of the Solicitor General and the Canadian International Development Agency, to the International Centre of Comparative Criminology at the University of Montreal?
2.	What reports have been prepared as a result of these expenditures?
3.	(a) Has the Centre, as alleged by the March 11, 1972 edition of the French language publication Perspectives, sent advisors to train the police forces of certain African or South American totalitarian regimes (b) what role did these persons play in the Centre's study of Canadian police, under a reputed grant of $150,000 from the Department of the Solicitor General?
4.	(a) What have been the positions of Alice Parizeau at the Centre and what is her relationship to leading separatist Jacques Parizeau (b) what role did she play in the recent study of police in Canada, paid for by the Department of the Solicitor General (c) is the Centre involved in providing surveillance (i) of students at the University of Montreal or elsewhere (ii) of Canadian law enforcement activities (d) what roles have members of the Police Security Planning and Analysis Group, formerly the Security Planning and Research Group, of the Department of the Solicitor General and Canadian Defence officials taken in the Centre's activities?
Return tabled.


Mr. Korchinski: In each constituency, how many projects were accepted as a result of recommendations made by constituency advisory groups or Members of Parliament?
Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, similar to one which I have raised before, concerning certain unanswered questions on a subject that always seems to be so popular on the other side of the House. I refer to question No. 1,145 asking for information concerning the Prime Minister's second opulent $80,000 Cadillac purchased from public funds, and I refer to questions Nos. 1,232, 1,233, and 1,294 on the subject of the mysterious and

February 24, 1975

luxurious swimming pool at Sussex Drive regarding which I have asked for the names of the donors, whether the Prime Minister himself is a donor, and whether the donors are being allowed to deduct the full amount of their donations, regardless of size, for income tax purposes.
It seems to me that these questions have been outstanding long enough for answers to have been prepared, and I think that before the Prime Minister leaves for Europe it would not be too much to expect him to stop hiding legitimate information behind non-answers and flippant replies.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['In any case, I recall the content of both questions to which reference has been made. The question from the hon. member for Hamilton West was addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister, and if I am not mistaken the supplementary question of the hon. member for Central Nova was directed to the Solicitor General. In any event, my recollection of both questions and both answers is that there was no ground for a question of privilege on either side.']
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the President of the Treasury Board. He is not here. Perhaps he will be in later. If not, I will ask him tomorrow.



Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of a press release which he issued on Friday morning on a subject which was of sufficient importance to announce in the House rather than sneak it into the press gallery. I want to ask him a question with reference to his agreement to remove the price ceilings upon petroleum products, and more particularly I want to ask him why he has agreed to allow the oil companies to raise their prices to reflect increased costs of gasoline, home heating fuel and related products on the basis of their cost in 1973 in view of the fact that 1974 was a bonanza year for the oil industry and that Gulf Oil Company showed profits that year of an increase of 61 per cent, although their sales revenue went up by only 50 per cent. I want to ask the minister why it was necessary to remove these price ceilings on petroleum products, and particularly why they were based on September, 1973.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the hon. gentleman's opening comment, he may recall if he looks back, that in May of 1974 when a similar authorization was permitted for non-crude costs, it was handled in the same way, that is to say, by Telex to the trade after informing the provincial ministers and then by the press release.
With regard to the non-crude costs involved since 1973, as the hon. gentleman would realize upon reflection, there have been these increases both in the costs of labour, other inputs in the refining process, and in particular of significance for the independent dealers, additional costs in transportation. It is on the basis of that, since they have
Oral Questions
not been able to take advantage of passing on these costs except for the increase allowed last May, that we reflect right back to that date, and that using that as the base date for monitoring their increases, they will of course not be permitted to go beyond the actual costs encountered, and which of course we will audit.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-SUGGESTION COMPANIES DEMONSTRATE NEED FOR PRICE INCREASE-METHOD OF MONITORING PRICE INCREASES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the minister is concerned about any increased cost or alleged increase in cost for refining and marketing the petroleum products, I want to ask the minister why he has not required the companies to demonstrate in each case where they want an increase in price that increased costs actually warrant an increase in the price of gasoline, home heating fuel and bunker 'C', rather than removing the ceiling completely and leaving the Canadian consumers at the mercy of the oil industry without any defence whatsoever.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have required the companies to do that. It was on the basis of these particular cost figures that the decision was made. The cost figures varied so much from company to company and from sector to sector that rather than allowing a single increase, as was allowed in May of last year, it was decided it was preferable to allow each individual refinery to take the increases which it had alleged had occurred in that period of time, to monitor those in the case of each particular company and to let competition take care of the level between them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
minister has said that he is going to monitor those increases. I would like to ask the Minister what agency in his department will do the monitoring, whether they will monitor each individual company which raises its price, on what basis will he allocate the increased cost to gasoline, to home heating fuel and to bunker 'C', what share of the cost will go to each of these commodities, and on what basis will he allow increased costs for marketing. Is this to include the political advertising now being carried on by Imperial Oil? If the Canadian people are going to pay more for petroleum products, surely they have a right to know from the minister how they are going to be protected, what monitoring will take place and what actual cost increases will be allowed to be reflected in the price which Canadians have to pay.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the monitoring system has been fully described to the parliamentary committee, and the process followed by my department and the Energy Supplies Allocation Board have been fully set out along with provision for audit. I appreciate the question, however, and in the first place the department seeks and obtains the lists of posted prices from the individual refiners. We also obtain net revenue per gallon for major products such as gasoline and heating products from major wholesalers. We have commissioned a special Statistics Canada report on indexed price information

February 24, 1975
Oral Questions
related to petroleum products, and it is prepared for the department on a monthly basis.
We survey as well all large industrial and commercial consumers as to whether they believe that their supplier has been conforming to the federal product price guidelines. There has been a very high response level. They have, in many cases, confirmed our previous knowledge. As well, we intend to initiate periodic surveys at the dealer level and there have, since the program started, been audits of all eleven companies made, and no major discrepancies have been uncovered between costs and actual prices charged.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-REASON FOR ALLOWING PRICE INCREASES RATHER THAN CHANGING NON-DEDUCTIBILITY PROVISION FOR ROYALTIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I would like to follow along the same line of questioning as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and ask the minister quite succinctly whether he would please explain to the House, in his sudden concern for oil company cost increases, why he has chosen to place further pressure upon the Canadian consumer by authorizing home heating oil and related fuel price increases and refused instead, in conjunction with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, to alleviate the cash problems and cost increases of the petroleum companies by eliminating the nondeductibility of provincial petroleum royalties clauses in Bill C-49 now under study by the committee of the whole House. Why did he choose that method against the consumer and not take a reasonable method in reference to this tax situation raised in my question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman's question ignores the very important fact that a critical section of the Canadian petroleum industry is made up of the independents, particularly the independent wholesalers, and that in order to keep this section viable-and they, of course would not have the benefit of any production income as the majors do-it is important to have the allowable cost structure bear some relationship to the actual costs which have been incurred.
The debate on the tax bill has been an extensive one. We feel on the whole that there is a fair share of the revenue being received by these companies which should go to the national purse, that there is a fair share which should go to the provincial purse, and it is fair enough to leave some in the hands of the companies for the purpose of further development of resources. We think that the distribution of 20 per cent to the federal sector, 50 per cent to the provincial sector and 30 per cent to the industry is a reasonable division of the oil dollar revenue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Can the minister explain to the House and to this country why the burden has now been put on all the consumers in reference to the cost of gasoline and the cost of heating fuel? Can he really justify the statement he has made in reference to passing the burden to every consumer in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we think we can, and indeed we will be quite prepared to go into this

again before the standing committee. I would remind the hon. member that the members of his party in Alberta would like to pass on to the consumers the world price for crude, which is something this government has resisted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MANPOWER
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell the House whether an initial payment has been made for the 1975-76 Local Initiatives Program?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as notice.


HARBOURS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I think it is a very important matter and we should have full disclosure at this particular time, knowing that this is what the Prime Minister would want. Has the Prime Minister had any discussions with his ministers regarding court proceedings involving the Hamilton Harbour Commission, and if so, what were the results? Can he advise that members of his cabinet or members of parliament are not involved by way of subpoenas or otherwise?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the last part of the question, I know of no subpoena having been issued to any minister or member of the caucus. On the first part of the question, of course proceedings were taken at the provincial level. They were not taken through any consultation with me.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION-POSSIBILITY PAYMENT FOR DREDGING BEING WITHHELD AWAITING COURT PROCEEDINGS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has answered the question in part. I would now ask if the Department of Transport is holding up final payment for dredging operations which are satisfactorily completed on the St. Lawrence because of improprieties in tendering and because of the need for final disposition of the Hamilton harbour court proceedings? Is the Prime Minister aware of this and if so, are the allegations true?

Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the allegations. I will look into the matter.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION-ALLEGED STATEMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL MINISTER OF LABOUR NOT IMPLICATED IN COURT PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In the Toronto Star of February 22 the minister was quoted as saying that the preliminary transcripts thus far relating to the Hamilton harbour matter do not implicate the Minister of Labour. This is reassuring but I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether in making that statement he is aware of that part of the evidence in the transcript referring to the telephone conversation recorded on April 2, 1974 between Mr. Elliott and Mr. Rindress of J. P. Porter Company, Limited?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did not say what I was quoted as saying. I said I had not been advised. As a matter of fact I had not asked the RCMP about the proceedings in that particular case. I will have to check into the second part of the question.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Every year about this time fertilizer dealers and some farmers take advantage of the United States market to sell fertilizer which normally might be used in Canada. Can the minister assure farmers that there will be adequate supplies of fertilizer this year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, according to information which I received during the past week, it appears that there will be adequate supplies in most parts of Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question. Because sales of fertilizer across the border to the United States seem to have doubled since last year and because certain shortages, particularly in northern areas, result in higher prices, may I ask the minister if he has inquired whether fertilizer producers might be able to distribute their fertilizer in a more equitable fashion so that people in northern areas may avail themselves of any supplies which may become available at reduced prices?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker; we discussed all this with fertilizer manufacturers a few weeks ago and I am asking for an updated report on their progress. I am also told that because of the depressed prices of crops, in the United States, there is not the demand for fertilizer in that country that was expected, so the cutback in exports to the United States will make more fertilizer available to Canadians.


GOVERNMENT ACTION IF EMPLOYEES DESIGNATED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a question for the President of the Treasury Board. I believe that certain positions at airports are designated essential for purposes of safety and security and these are held by members of the GTL group. Can the minister advise the House whether some of these people have recently left their jobs during rotating strikes? If so, what measures is the minister taking to impress upon the people who occupy positions designated essential that they must remain on the job during rotating strikes?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we intend to take action against every employee who is designated to stay in his job who has not done so. We respect the right to strike for everybody but those who do not have the right to strike should report to their jobs. If they do not we will prosecute as is provided under the law.


An hon. Member:: You will lay them off.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary. Of course, I am only asking the minister about those employees who do not have the right to strike because their positions are designated essential. In view of the fact that such action does not seem to have been particularly successful in the past, can the minister give any assurance that what he proposes to do now will be any more effective?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not put the mechanism in place myself. I follow the law as it is. I hope the prosecutions will be carried out very quickly so that they will be as efficient as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House that the measures he proposes have any promise of being effective in view of the probability of weather conditions becoming more seasonable and the difficulties that would immediately arise as a result? Is the minister simply telling the House that he will do the best he can, but that the machinery in his hands is inadequate or can he give the House an assurance that he is in a position to take measures that would enforce the actual legal position?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to achieve the same results as I do. I will take all measures under the law to ensure that essential services are protected.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUPS- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO RE-OPEN NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I hope it does not take the ten or twelve months that it took in the last instance to get action. In view of the fact that the Public Service Alliance spokesmen have indicated the strike will intensify by the end of the week unless the government reverses its current stand on wage

February 24, 1975
Oral Questions
demands, can the minister tell the House of the efforts he has made over the weekend and during today with respect to the reopening of negotiations between the Treasury Board and the alliance?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am informed there were informal talks going on today between the parties. I hope they will bring some resolution of the problems.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUPS-REASON FOR FAILURE TO CONSIDER CONCILIATION REPORT OF UNION NOMINEE
J. Michael Forrestall: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House whether the government has given consideration to the conciliation report prepared by a union nominee which represented a somewhat modified version of the original demands, requesting a 20.98 per cent increase for the first year and 12 per cent for the second year? If not, can the minister inform the House why this matter was rejected?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it was because we have decided it advisable to take the majority report given by the chairman, who is a responsible person, who looked at the arguments on both sides and came to a conclusion.


WAGE OFFER TO GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF OVER-ALL WAGE POLICY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. It was reported, and the President of the Treasury Board has just confirmed, that the government is sticking to its earlier position of 26 per cent over two years. Is this because the government realizes that it must set an example to the rest of the country? If this offer to the GTL group is supposed to be an example, would it be fair to assume that it is related to some over-all policy? Does the government have an over-all policy on wage increases generally at this time and if so, what is that policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government did not stick to its original position as the hon. member alleges because, as the President of the Treasury Board indicated, we decided to accept the majority report. The government policy is contained in the acceptance of the majority report.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that the majority report ought to represent increases and other dealings in the economy for the coming year, and is he directing the effort in formulating an over-all program for which this is the foundation for the balance of the economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows each report is written in the particular circumstances of the case before the chairman of the board. Obviously, that is the way our labour laws work. When you set up a mediation or arbitration board it deals with the case before it, not some hypothetical case.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In answer to a question I put last Thursday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that it had not been the policy of the government to approve licences for the export of arms to Turkey during the recent conflict but that the situation had changed. He believed the policy had been modified but said he would like to refresh his memory before giving a definitive answer. May I now ask the minister whether the policy of not granting licences for the export of arms to Turkey has been modified? If so, how has the situation changed to justify this?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the question which was put to my colleague was in relation to American arms being shipped through Canada to Turkey.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it had to do with Canadian arms.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer that I have here from the department is an answer to the supposed inquiry of the hon. member. May I take the hon. member's question as notice.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister cannot answer the question, would he look at last Thursday's Hansard and see precisely what the question was. It dealt initially with export licences for Canadian arms and materials to go to Turkey. That is the question to which I should like an answer. If he cannot answer today, I guess we will have to come back some other day.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister indicate to the House whether he has received the report of the Canadian Textile and Clothing Board, commissioned to inquire into the four sectors of the textile industry where there has been evidence of dumping by certain countries, and if so, could he tell us whether that report will be submitted this week as promised?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have received a number of reports from the textile and clothing board. These reports will be made public. At present they are undergoing intensive examination from the point of view of recommendations. I hope to be able to make a statement on the matter shortly.


TRANSPORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in his capacity as Acting Minister of Transport. What steps has the Department of Transport taken to alleviate what appears to be a critical shortage of food on Bell Island, Newfoundland, as a result of unseasonably heavy ice blockage.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question, as a result of which I have been able to determine that the Humphrey Gilbert, an icebreaker, is loading today with a cargo of supplies for Bell Island. It is expected that she will arrive at the island by noon, tomorrow. As the standard icebreaker, the John Guy is in drydock now and as the replacement vessel is not equipped for icebreaking, not even behind an icebreaker, the Humphrey Gilbert has been pressed into action, to take care of supply requirements.


INCOME TAX
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of National Revenue. It has to do with the content rules for Canadian magazines. If I may editorialize, I should think that statement was so important that it ought to have been made in this House. Having said that, let me ask this: What is the basis for the percentages announced by the minister? Is that decision supported by Order in Council. What regulation gave the minister the authority to bring in those percentages? What is the jurisprudence behind the decision.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we endeavour to avoid giving legal opinions in the House and the question which the hon. member asked is important. The news reports to which he referred are about statements I made relating to the general administrative advice that income tax authorities have given to those who inquired as to the meaning of "substantially the same", as used in reference to a Canadian issue of a periodical, as referred to in section 19(5)(f) of the Income Tax Act.
I emphasize that each periodical mentioned in that section must be judged on its merits. That is the kind of advice the administrators have been giving since 1965, when that section was first written. I might underline also, in view of the words used by the hon. member, that that section, as I am advised, does not speak of Canadian content and makes no reference to the word "content".
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF NEW PROVISIONS TO NEWSPAPERS OWNED BY BRITISH INTERESTS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the statement the minister made about proposed legislation affecting Time and Reader's Digest, is it correct to assume that this legislation will not apply to the four western Canadian newspapers owned by interests in Liverpool, run with Canadian managers and editors and published by Canadians for the benefit of all Canadians; and is it also correct to assume that, as far as they are concerned, "it will be business as usual".


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my statement on Friday, and the statements which have been referred to, related to intepretations which had been made as to the section as now written, not as to any proposed legislative changes that my colleague, the Secretary of State, will be introducing. Therefore, in that sense, the question is hypothetical. I understand that there have been discussions between those four western newspapers of which the hon. member spoke, and officers of my department, to see whether they can comply with existing legislation or possible proposed legislation.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. As all beef purchased for the Canadian armed forces so far has been grades B-l and B-2, and as new tenders call for all carcasses to be of grades A-l and A-2, carcasses of these grades each to cost the Canadian taxpayer between $60 and $70 more, may I ask if it is now government policy to purchase grade A-l and A-2 beef carcasses for the Canadian armed forces. Is this the new policy?


An hon. Member:: Don't give us a bum steer.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly examine with interest the impact of that policy and check with my colleague the Minister of National Defence what were the Department's requisitions.


AGRICULTURE
Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Acting as a spokesman for the beef producers of Canada, would the minister make representations to the Minister of Supply and Services and ask him to revert to

February 24, 1975
Oral Questions
the previous tendering policy, in order to help not only beef producers but consumers as well?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am given to understand that Canadian meats are always used when they are available, regardless of the department to which they are supplied.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
He has been repeating for the past week that blue collar workers have the right to strike, and that their strike is a legal one. This is true, but could the minister advise the House whether his government is considering the possible, and perhaps necessary setting up of compulsory arbitration, in order to finally put an end to these abuses which this series of strikes throughout Canada are, including those within the public service.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had the opportunity to state his position on this issue when the relevant legislation was adopted in 1967. Such an opportunity will present itself again shortly, since a Joint Committee is looking into the recommendations of the Finkelman Report. Hon. members will debate this issue, and the hon. member may appear to make his position known to the committee.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I thank the minister for his kind invitation. I shall certainly go to committee to discuss the problem. But, in the meantime, might the minister not be well advised to turn to the good offices of Louis Laberge, Dede Desjardins and Fernand Daoust of Montreal?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to do with those three union leaders. They are in no way concerned with the civil servants' associations. I am happy to learn that the hon. member for Temiscamingue will be willing to appear before House committees in the future.


FINANCE
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I regret that I did not give him notice; I hope he will bring in an answer within the next little while. As the level of federal government expenditures is being attacked more and more and as it is assumed by many that federal government spending is the major cause of inflation, will 
the minister soon bring before this House information showing the increase in federal government spending between 1962 and 1972, corrected for inflation, to show that government expenditures are not the greatest cause of inflation, as has been alleged?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that the hon. member, on reflection, will realize that information ought to be sought in another way.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-POSSIBLE CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY ON IMPACT OF PRICE INCREASES ON INFLATION
Mr. Jim Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask him whether, before he issued the new price guidelines with respect to fuel, he was in communication with the industry as to the effect the change in diesel and fuel oil prices is likely to have on the inflation picture?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We received requests from the industry on the basis of actual costs, and as I indicated in response to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands these vary a great deal from company to company and quite substantially as between regions. Instead of authorising an across-the-board increase this time we agreed that each party could increase prices to the extent requested on the assumption that competition would exercise a levelling effect. And of course, there would be different circumstances which would warrant varying prices rather than a single price.


James McPhail Gillies: Were any calculations made by the department as to the impact of this change on the rate of inflation? How does this change fit in with the general thesis of the government that the proper way to deal with inflation is through some sort of voluntary program? This action seems to be running counter to the general policy of the government, that of trying to deal with inflation through voluntary guidelines.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, we are dealing here with prices which, except for a minor change in May, have been restrained for the past 18 months. Of course this particular industry does remain an anomaly through the country as a whole; there is price control in this particular industry which does not apply to industry in general. We don't need the same hortative techniques with regard to the petroleum industry because, in effect, the government has been exercising control over petroleum prices at the wholesale level since December, 1973.


James McPhail Gillies: Did the minister's department or did the Department of Finance calculate before this change was made, the inflationary impact on the Canadian economy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We could not be sure as to the extent to which this would be passed on. It was
February 24, 1975

recognized that at the current stage, with a very substantial surplus position in both crude oil and petroleum products internationally, it is very likely that the full costs would not find their way through into the retail prices. It is difficult at this point to make a precise calculation. Some small escalation is likely but nothing near as much as would result if we followed the demands of those who want us to go to international crude prices.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-POSSIBILITY REMOVAL OF PRICE CEILING ANTICIPATES INCREASE IN WELLHEAD PRICE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Has the decision of the government to remove the voluntary guidelines on oil and gas prices at the consumer level been taken in anticipation of a sharp rise in the wellhead price after the April meeting with the provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would remind the hon. member that we have never exercised control at the consumer level but at the wholesale level. I would also point out that the press release does not indicate a release from control. Rather, each refiner or wholesaler will be confined to the increase on account of his costs he has requested. So there is still a control and the accounts will still be audited.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. It appears that Rear Admiral Pickford, Commander Maritime Command Pacific is to be replaced by a junior commodore. This will be widely regarded as a downgrading of the importance, the role and probably the equipment of forces on the West Coast. Can the minister assure the House that these fears are not justified and that a rear admiral or person of equivalent rank will continue to be in charge of our forces on the West Coast?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member that assurance. It is not our intention to downgrade Esquimalt. The Deputy Commander, Maritime Command, will remain on the West Coast at Esquimalt.


POSSIBLE AGREEMENT OF HOCKEY LEAGUES NOT TO SIGN PLAYERS AS PROFESSIONALS BEFORE AGE 20-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the hon. gentleman received any representations from the National Hockey League, the World Hockey Association or the CAHA with respect to supportive action by the government with respect to an agreement
Oral Questions
between these bodies to restrict the ability to sign professional players before they reach the age of 20 and, if so, is it the government's policy to dissociate itself from this particular request or does the government intend to take the supportive action requested by these groups?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the representatives of the three groups concerned, some of my high officials and myself have met. I explained the position of the government on this matter in a speech to the Canadian Sports Federation in Vancouver a few weeks ago.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am sorry but I do not recall the minister indicating the position he put forward with respect to the request made by these groups.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that the position of the government was explained in a speech made to the Canadian Sports Federation which met in Vancouver; I then said clearly that the government looked with favour upon an agreement under which no players under 20 years of age would be signed up.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: wonder if I could bother the President of the Treasury Board with a question. In any instance recently with regard to public servants, employees in the GLT group occupying a position designated as essential, have the minister or his officials sought permission from the Public Service Staff Relations Board to instigate prosecutions, which I believe has to be done, and has the minister any reason to believe that a decision will be reached in less than the eight to ten months during which these applications for permission have been under consideration in the past.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As
the Leader of the Opposition knows, before Christmas there were about 900 cases of illegal striking and I took action against them. The present strike started on Monday of last week and, of course, we have to gather information before we institute the prosecutions. When we have this information we will proceed. We are in touch now with the different departments gathering information.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister agrees, I assume, that he needs the permission of the Public Service Staff Relations Board before he can launch prosecutions. Has there been any change in the length of time it has taken in the past to get such permission which I understand is eight, nine or as long as ten months usually?

Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have to ask permission and I then will prosecute. I cannot state how long it would take to obtain permission because I have no control over this board. I hope it will render a decision quickly because it serves no useful purpose when a decision is delayed for eight or ten months.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-USE OF PAY RESEARCH BUREAU FUNDINGS TO SETTLE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the President of the Treasury Board.
Considering that the confidential report prepared by the Pay Research Bureau on salaries, on the request of the Treasury Board, emphasized that employees within the general labour and trades group of the Public Service are paid salaries substantially lower than those paid for similar work in the private sector, and considering that elimination of this anomaly would be a condition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Since the oral question period is almost finished, I would like the hon. member to ask his question, if possible.


Donald W. Munro: Is the minister prepared to use this report and its findings to reopen negotiations with the striking union, proceedings which would protect public interest?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what report the hon. member alluded, but inaccuracies happen to creep up sometimes. A worker employed by the federal government and assigned to maintenance as a plumber must be compared with a plumber working at maintenance in the private sector. He must not be compared with a construction worker, because of course construction workers are not engaged in maintenance and earn higher wages. Their job is seasonal and they do not have the job security of public service employees.
Right here in Ottawa not one day goes by without construction workers asking to enter the federal public service at the working conditions we offer.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Is it true then that the minister denies the existence of a confidential report to that effect?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a report. We receive all kinds of reports. It may sometimes happen that certain views are expressed in the way described by the hon. member in the House today, but such is not our impression. We try to offer wages comparable to those in private industry and we are sure that we do offer them.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUPS- SUGGESTED ACTION TO ENSURE MAIL DELIVERY
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Because of the fact that the very existence of the small businessman is being threatened by the postal walkout, particularly in the Toronto area, an existence which has become vital to our over-all economy, would the President of the Treasury Board, perhaps with his colleague the Postmaster General, consider suggesting to the post office members of the Public Service Alliance that they make it possible for all business documents to be delivered along the same lines as the old age pension cheques, since the small Canadian businessman depends in many cases totally upon regular mail deliveries?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the right to strike is given to the public sector it obviously disturbs the economy, and I do not see now how this problem could be solved in the way suggested by the hon. member. We might as well simply propose to withdraw their right to strike, as suggested earlier by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) on reflection I believe made reference, as did another hon. member, to preliminary hearings being held in Hamilton. Many of the names that have been mentioned have been known to be involved for many months in this preliminary hearing, though they are not permitted to be given any publicity whatever. I have been aware that my name has been mentioned-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: So has mine.


John Carr Munro: -and so has the hon. member's. The fact of the matter is that I did not refer the matter to anyone because, as far as I am concerned, the substance of the allegations are totally false with regard to myself, and I am satisfied with regard to the hon. member himself. For this reason I made no mention of the matter whatsoever to anybody.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) is saying. Perhaps he wants to tell this House or the Canadian public something, but I cannot understand what his question of privilege is. Let me just rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker, if that is required, and I think it is. I think we are all very much aware of the circumstances in Hamilton involving the harbour commission and the reading of matters that have come to light. I still have a copy of my question, and although I do not recall the preamble to it I should like to repeat it. This is why I am concerned that the minister has raised a question of privilege. I asked whether the Prime Minister had had any discussion with his ministers regarding court proceedings involving the Hamilton harbour commission and, if so, what were the results. I also asked him whether he could advise that members of his cabinet or MP's are not involved by way of

February 24, 1975

subpoenas or otherwise. What is the Minister of Labour attempting to do? I suggest he has no question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am equally convinced by both hon. members that no question of privilege exists.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Labour sought the floor on a question of privilege in connection with a question put this afternoon. The hon. member who asked the question made a contribution to the question of privilege. Clearly, the question was perfectly legitimate; there was no content in it that I could recognize as a question of privilege. The matter has now been laid to rest. Orders of the day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I think the minister wants to indicate that he is very sorry that he commenced his remarks by referring to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't get so nervous over there. Whenever you people are on the ropes you get nervous. The Minister of Labour unquestionably stood up and made reference to the hon. member for Hamilton West. It now appears from exchanges across the aisle-I say this with respect-that he really did not refer to me but to the questioner who asked a question subsequent to mine. This is my short question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I think the Minister of Labour understands me very well.


John Carr Munro: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I referred to the comments of the hon. member for Hamilton West, which were followed by comments by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).


Mr. Speaker:: In any case, I recall the content of both questions to which reference has been made. The question from the hon. member for Hamilton West was addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister, and if I am not mistaken the supplementary question of the hon. member for Central Nova was directed to the Solicitor General. In any event, my recollection of both questions and both answers is that there was no ground for a question of privilege on either side.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 21, consideration in committee of Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)- Mr. Penner in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose on Friday, February 21, 1975, the following clauses had been allowed to stand previously: clauses 4, 7,
Income Tax
9, 35, 37, 43.1 and 80. It has been agreed that the committee will consider first, today, clause 4 as amended.
On clause 4.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, my proposals today will contain an amendment that covers clauses 4, 7 and all related clauses. I would also hope before completing my remarks to put a question to the Chairman as to whether we can deal with these clauses under one amendment rather than dealing with them separately. I know this will require a little thought on the part of the Chairman, so I will come back to it later in my remarks. In the meantime I will assume that the one debate will cover clauses 4, 7 and related clauses.
First of all, in dealing with Bill C-49 I think the main point is that parliament is now facing the crunch. The minister has been kind and a good parliamentarian in agreeing to allow these clauses which are controversial to stand, that is clauses 4, 7 and those related to them as listed by the Chairman. The clauses all deal with a dangerous innovation of Canadian constitutional practices and the practices of parliament which deserve careful consideration by members of all parties in the interest of this parliament.
Fundamentally, what we are talking about is that we want to give time to the executive of the federal government to discuss proposals with the provincial governments and the various resource companies affected, so that when the first ministers meet on April 9 and 10 of this year there will be enough progress made to give the country the assurance that there will be an amicable understanding and agreement. This is the way the parliamentary system works in this country, and it is the way the federal system has to work if we are to carry out federal operations when two or more levels of government have an interest in the same subject.
The Minister of Finance will recall that on January 30 I gave him in private-I also spoke to him in the House publicly on behalf of this party-a proposal that simply provided a basis on which the provinces and the federal government could sit down with the resource industries and all could make more money out of our resources. This proposal could not be put forward by me in the House because of its detail.
I asked the minister, first, to have his officials study and analyse this proposal from the point of view of the remarks I have just made, namely, that the various parties sharing in these resources could get more money and, second, I asked if he would turn the proposal over to the provincial governments and the private companies which are very much concerned, for their study. This is what I meant a moment ago when I said that the crunch is here. Every time, in the history of the House of Commons, the matter comes up which has a serious impact on the great mass of Canadian people, namely, the best use of our resources not only to provide jobs in Canada but to use the income from those resources in carrying out the functions of government in this country, parliament is supposed to respond in a way that forgets partisanship but remembers only what is good for the country.
3504

February 24, 1975
Income Tax
The amendment I intend to propose this afternoon is a simple one; it is to not proclaim these controversial clauses until after the meeting of the first ministers on April 9 and 10. That is all I am asking. I am asking members on the government side and members of each party in this House to consider the import of what I am saying on behalf of the official opposition, to consider its importance to the people of Canada and to accept the amendment.
This amendment will not in any way reduce the power of the federal government in the forthcoming negotiations. What it will do is enable the federal government's negotiators to take part in conversations with provincial government negotiators on a basis in which there is room for the federal government to be flexible. If this House of Commons passes this legislation, it becomes the law of the land and federal ministers cannot offer anything less than the law; they would have to come back to this House and ask for amendments to the budget and this is very difficult to do. I repeat what I have tried to emphasize throughout, namely, that we in the official opposition in trying to do our duty have proposed two things to the Minister of Finance; and I will have a third later on. These two proposals can be laid on the table for the provincial governments and given to the companies for consideration, to see if there can be a better deal for all concerned.
At the conclusion of my remarks I will ask the minister a couple of questions dealing with what he has done since January 30 when I first made this proposal. In the meantime, I want to put on the record of this committee the fact that some people in the country have heard about what is being proposed. I have a sheaf of telegrams in my hand, one of which happens to be from the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, mentioned the other day in the House by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. He simply says in this telegram, addressed to the Prime Minister and to ministers of the Crown:
In view of the forthcoming first ministers' conference, I would request that the federal government give consideration to delaying passage of that portion o' 1he income tax bill pertaining to non-deductibility of royalties until al er the conference.
He goes on, but that is the main burden of his telegram. The others I have are from private companies and I do not know where they operate in all cases. One is from Wesfrob Mines Limited; another is from Sturgeon Lake Mines; another is from Falconbridge Copper; another is from Falconbridge Nickel. I do not think those are in Saskatchewan. Another telegram is from Giant Yellowknife Mines, which seems to me to be the Northwest Territories; another is from United Keno Hill Mines, which is in the Yukon; another is from Quebec Raglan Mines, and I have one from McIntyre Mines.
I am trying to emphasize to the minister and to the committee that it is not only the oil industry that is caught in this battle between the two levels of government over resource taxation; it is the mining and forestry companies as well. Just to bear out my contention, let me say I did not get a telegram from one of our great giants, Noranda, but I have a statement from their president as reported in the Globe and Mail as recently as February 4 in which he concludes by stating:
In Noranda's case, he said, the effective tax rate this year will vary from about 60 per cent in Ontario and Quebec to more than 100 per cent

in western Canada, compared with an average tax rate in 1973 of around 40 per cent.
I quote that to illustrate that a large conglomerate like Noranda, which represents a mix of manufacturing, processing and mining, has had its taxes raised to 60 per cent in the eastern part of Canada and over 100 per cent in the four western provinces. If I put on record the information I have been getting from the smaller companies, it would prove that the statement I made earlier in this debate, that the income tax liability would range between 80 per cent and 120 per cent, was an understatement. The information that I am now getting, as accountants go over the year's figures, is that the tax liability under this budget, on top of provincial taxes, is running to over 120 per cent, and I have one figure of 130 plus per cent. You cannot operate these mining companies with a tax liability to both governments of over 100 per cent.
So, quite frankly, my pitch is, first, to end this quarrel and, second, to remind the committee that the people who are doing the real bleeding and suffering today are the small Canadian companies. Those which are international such as Noranda can survive by moving out of the country, but the smaller ones are taking a beating.


Gerald William Baldwin: Only the government can operate on a deficit.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I say to
the minister that this is not just a matter of saying, as I mentioned earlier, that they can afford to pay it when the factual evidence before us is that this is not so. The companies do have the right to live, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources keeps reminding us. But when the total tax liability of the potash companies in Saskatchewan and the mining companies, producing a product desperately needed by the world to produce food, is at the 87 per cent level, you know there will be no more expansion in that industry and this forces governments into doing it themselves. Some people would like that, but I shall not go into that question now. I am simply saying that I think I have made a case on the basis of the economics of the mining industry which is suffering mortally today. The small Canadian companies cannot stand this bleeding much longer. The big companies can hang on, but not the small ones.
When the minister allows his government to continue the budget as it is, every member of this House stands condemned, if we put this legislation through, of destroying small Canadian business in mining, oil and gas in the interests of speaking up for the great international giants which can stand off and watch this fight come to its conclusion and then come back in. So this amendment deals with clauses 4, 7 and all the related clauses. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if you can find it within your power to rule that the amendment I propose will be allowed to amend all these clauses that are related to clauses 4 and 7 and can be debated and voted on as one amendment. To help you out, I will read the amendment I propose to move and let your officials advise Your Honour. I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley:
February 24, 1975

That part I of the said bill be amended by adding thereto, next after line 31 on page 268, the following:
"127. Subsections 4(2) and (5) and subsections 7(1) and (5) and any other provision of this act to the extent that it is necessary and incidental to or consequential upon those subsections or any of them shall not come into force and have effect as law except upon proclamation of the governor in council following upon the expiration of the 15th day of April, 1975.".
May I have a ruling on that proposal, Mr. Chairman, or do you wish to wait until later?


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member has raised a number of questions related to procedure. One has to do with debate on the clauses that have been stood. Hon. members are aware of the clauses to which I am referring. Since there is a similarity in the subject matter of all those clauses, there would be, of course, little procedural difficulty in the way of hon. members of the committee debating the subject related to all of them: that should not pose any problem.
In terms of introducing an amendment which would have some effect on each of the clauses, and dealing with the matter by a single division of the committee, it would pose considerable difficulties. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member Standing Order 75(1) which clearly indicates that the committee must deal with clauses in their order. In this case we are dealing with clauses that have been stood, but they must stand in sequence and I think they will have to be dealt with in that particular way, that is, separately as if there were an amendment to each clause which would have to be considered and disposed of by the committee.
The final matter raised by the hon. member concerns the acceptability of the amendment that he has introduced. That raises a number of complexities. If hon. members of the committee will permit it, the Chair will reserve its judgment about the acceptability of the amendment and rule on it as soon as possible. In the meantime, the debate on clause 4 and the subject matter of all the clauses can be proceeded with.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I have one comment to make. I know you have made a ruling, but as I understand the amendment-and I have spoken to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain-it does not change any of the individual clauses that have been stood and deal with the same subject matter, namely, taxation of the resource industry and how it is implemented, but it asks that they not come into effect until there is an order in council implementing them all.
Surely we should reach consensus to facilitate the debate. May I say, with the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, that you might be interpreting the Standing Order too narrowly. This situation is slightly different and it is anticipated by the rule. The amendment covers all the clauses. They will not be implemented until an order in council is passed. Surely it would be very cumbersome if every time one of the clauses came up on the same subject we had to move the same amendment. This would delay proceedings. It seems to me it was never intended that the Standing Order should be so interpreted. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, I am not being critical of what you have said: you have raised a very thoughtful question.
Income Tax


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I do not argue with your ruling and I am prepared to move this amendment to each of these clauses, simply making a slight change in the wording every time, if that will help you. But for the convenience of the committee we could decide on one vote. That would clear away a lot of the difficulties.
May I conclude the rest of my remarks? I ask the Minister of Finance if he is aware that the precedent for what I have been proposing is in the Foreign Investment Review Act, where part II was not proclaimed by reason of amending a section at the end of part II. I think he is aware that one of the most fortunate things parliament did was to agree not to proclaim part II until there had been consultation with the provinces. It turned out that when there was consultation with the provinces, all ten provinces urged the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce not to proclaim the section at all. I will quote from an article by Peter Cook in the Financial Times of February 17, 1975. Speaking of part II of the act, this is what Peter Cook had to say:
Mr. Gillespie told the Commons as recently as last October he would proclaim part two of the act before the end of last year. He said this was possible because the government screening body, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, was working well and provincial governments were co-operating with the new controls.
In December, a meeting of provincial ministers asked for a postponement of part two. Mr. Gillespie has since agreed to put off implementing it until after next month's talks.
That meeting is in March, and I point out to the minister, if he is not aware of it, that here we have a situation where one minister of the Crown is taking advantage of what parliament, in good sense, did with respect to the Foreign Investment Review Act by putting in an amendment saying that part II would not be proclaimed until the government had consulted with the provinces. This has saved the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce being put in the impossible position of having to come back into this House and asking for amendments to a law which parliament has passed. I am suggesting that the Minister of Finance not get himself into the position the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would have been in if parliament had not put in that amendment saying that part II of the Foreign Investment Review Act should not be proclaimed. I think the Minister of Finance would recognize the political danger of this and realize that he would be trapped entirely if these clauses were passed without this amendment postponing their proclamation until after the meeting of the first ministers.
I will now ask the minister the questions I promised to ask. On January 30, and again on February 13, I asked the minister if he would examine my proposals dealing with sharing the economic rental from resources as between the provinces and the federal government. I asked him to have his officials examine this hypothetical cash flow for an oil sands plant which would have given the province 50 per cent of the take, the federal government 20 per cent of the net, and the equity people 30 per cent, all of which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources mentioned today because these figures of 50 per cent, 30 per cent and 20 per cent are the figures proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as a fair sharing of the economic
28996-17'/2

February 24, 1975
Income Tax
rent. Has the minister, in the last three weeks, contacted the provincial governments, or have they made contact with him on any of these proposals?


Mr. Nystrom:: That's you, John.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will repeat the question, Mr. Chairman. During the last three weeks has the Minister of Finance taken this hypothetical way of dividing the rent as a proposal to the provinces and received their reaction?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: No, Mr. Chairman. We have studied it ourselves and have not been able at this stage to accept it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has the minister taken this proposal-there are two proposals, actually-to the companies and received their opinions; that is, any of the companies?
Mb. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): No, nor have we received their opinions. Although the hon. gentleman says he has had some communication with them, we have not.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This means that the official opposition, acting in good faith on January 30 and again on February 13, made a proposal to the Minister of Finance which he should consider and which was a modern method of dealing with capital-intensive industry to give more money to the owners of the resource, the province, and more money to the federal government by sharing the profits of the companies, or the equity people; at the same time there would be enough money going to the companies to enable them to continue. In this particular proposal which I made to him, the province of Alberta, for example, on an oil sands plant would get double the amount it is getting now under the present Syncrude deal. The federal government, which will get very little or nothing from the Syncrude project, would get $90 million per year, and the equity people would get about 18 per cent or 19 per cent on their equity. That is fair enough. It seems to me that the idea which I put forward was not taken seriously by the Minister of Finance. Apparently he did not pass it on, by his own admission, to the provinces for discussion; and apparently he did not, by his own admission, pass it on to the companies for examination.
Here we have the provinces and the federal government in a confrontation situation, the companies in a state of frustration-spinning their wheels and not going anywhere-and the minister did not even bother to put the proposal before them. I shall try once again to put another proposal before the minister. This time it is not mine. Perhaps that is the reason my first proposal was not passed on. This proposal comes from the London Economist of February 15, 1975-last week.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Herb Gray wrote it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This proposal deals with the North Sea oilfields and gasfields. It is a proposal put forward, in effect, by the government of the United Kingdom and it is now before the companies operating in the North Sea. Under this proposal, instead of

all the money going to paying interest on the capital, the government of that country takes a small royalty of 12 lA per cent and then deliberately offers the company an accelerated, immediate write-off of 150 per cent of its earnings, which has the effect of paying off all debts, according to this hypothetical cash flow, in about five years. Coincidentally, these are the same figures I came to in my hypothetical cash flow.
Here we have a hypothetical situation in the North Sea where the investment money pours in to the extent of $2.3 billion, mostly in the first five years. The money begins coming back out slowly at the end of five years and builds up to produce enough income, because the companies are allowed to write off such a large amount, to enable them to pay all their debts during the ninth and tenth years. This table shows that even though the government is getting- as I will point out in a minute-large sums of money, it is allowing business to take 25 per cent on their investment, which is a larger amount than I proposed three weeks ago. I proposed only 18 per cent or 19 per cent. At the same time, the government of the United Kingdom, after the money is paid out and the capital debt is repaid, takes up to 65 per cent of the returns. It is called a petroleum revenue tax.
Without going into all the other causes, I am simply saying that it is roughly a division of about 70 per cent of the value of that oil, if the North Sea operation goes to the people of the United Kingdom, and the companies with 30 per cent are able to make a return on investment of 25 per cent. The reason the government can be so generous with the companies and with the people of the United Kingdom is that the debts are paid first: it is as simple as that. The minister had this proposal in his possession over the weekend. He has seen the projected cash flows. I think he has a duty to this country and to the House of Commons to put that proposal into the hands of the provinces and ask their opinions. Personally, I do not like this type of deal because I do not like the concept of a write-off that is too fast. I like the concept of a contractual arrangement where one agrees that the main enemy of the people-that means the government and business today-is the tremendous amount of capital required and the tremendous amount of interest which must be paid on it. If we could agree to be partners on a contractual basis and get rid of this capital debt quickly, then the amount of interest to be paid would be very little.
Under my proposal, instead of spending between $8 billion and $10 billion in interest payments over the 30-year life of the tar sands fields, we would pay it off in five years and only $2 Vi million would go into capital and interest payments. Under the present Syncrude proposal, unless the price were to go up to about $12 per barrel or more, it would be impossible for companies and the federal government to get anything out of it. We have wired this country into high-cost oil just as the Americans are doing with their huge expenditures for new sources of energy.
Surely it is hypocritical of the Minister of Finance to say now that he believes in lower prices for the people of Canada when just last week he announced a deal that means we are wired to high prices forever. The people get nothing out of the resources, Mr. Chairman. I would say,
February 24, 1975

as I said at the time, that is not only a marginal deal but it is a dangerous deal for Canada. I think the minister would do his party and the House of Commons a favour if he remembered that this House has a record of making adjustments to proposals put forward by the opposition. The minister has two choices. He can say, "I am not going to do anything but let time go by, and eventually the bill will go through" or he can say, "I am going to agree with this moderate, constructive proposal of the opposition, which is supported by all parties, and I will consult the provinces and the companies. It is not up to us in parliament to suggest which of these two proposals is the best- the resources belong to the provinces-but if I take this course and do not proclaim this controversial section there will be a better chance of success for the first ministers' conference in April." Above all, this would show that the minister is a parliamentarian.
Mr. Chairman, I have searched my memory of the last ten years and it seems that five or six times the government of the day accepted suggestions made by the opposition, and each of those suggestions was beneficial to the people of Canada. In 1966 the government made the wrong decision about the Great Lakes pipeline. The arguments in this House were accepted and the government reversed its position. As a result, Ontario and Quebec benefited by a lower gas price. In the same year, 1966, on a motion of no confidence from this side, the government said they were not opposed to the motion, and the National Energy Board did its duty: American buyers of our gas were forced to accept a raise in price of 50 of per cent and give Canadians living in British Columbia, the Peace River area, a fair price for their gas. I congratulate the government for making the changes on both those occasions. Canada benefited in both cases: in one case British Columbia got a fair price for gas, and in the other case Ontario and Quebec got cheaper natural gas for ten years.
In 1966-67, on the national transportation bill, now the National Transportation Act, over 70 opposition amendments were accepted. It is a lousy act still, of course, because the government should have accepted two more amendments, but this at least showed some willingness by the government and the legislation was a little better than when it was originally introduced. In 1970-71, when I was not in the House, a group of members on this side fought for two sessions on the national marketing act. They saved this country from having a mess something like CEMA for every agricultural product in the country. Parliament was doing its duty then.
Last fall the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, realizing the weight of arguments put forward by the opposition, pulled back the petroleum administration bill for later presentation which meant, in effect, until after the first ministers' meeting. Surely this minister can be a parliamentarian too, Mr. Chairman. We are not asking the federal government to give up any power; we are only asking that they not proclaim this controversial section until they have met the other ten governments.
The other choice for the minister is to sit there and risk the failure of the first ministers' conference on April 8 and 9. If the conference should fail, he will know in his heart who carries the responsibility. If there is some sort of deal made there and he has to back up on his budget, he will be
Income Tax
looked upon as a lousy Minister of Finance. Before he is pushed into that position he should admit that the opposition has a good point, and accept the amendment. If the minister does not accept this proposal, which is supported by all parties on this side-and, I am sure, by many Liberal members in their hearts-it will lead me to suspect that there is a deal. That suspicion could be squelched, however, if the minister were to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have received very many telegrams, but not one from the large, international mining companies or the large, international oil companies. I have wondered why. I get many wires and phone calls from desperate Canadian companies complaining about two levels of government overtaxing them. If the minister persists in his flippant attitude toward this moderate proposal that the opposition is asking him to accept, I can only conclude that he has made a deal and that there will be a budget in May to bring in what he has agreed with them privately. He has not told the provinces about his deal and he has not told parliament or the people.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister has not made a deal with these large companies. I hope he will remember that there has been in this House of Commons a willingness to look at things reasonably and to accept amendments. If he should accept this amendment, he would not be giving away anything but would be able to walk into the conference without blood on his hands. I hope he will put these proposals before his new deputy minister and the provinces and let them decide. Under the circumstances, I think the minister would be well advised to accept the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Chair has ruled on the proposal made by the hon. member. There may be middle ground on the procedural aspect of it which the government may want to consider. The Chair has indicated that there is no problem about debating these clauses together because they are consequential, one follows the other. At the appropriate time we might move a motion relating to clause 4 and it may well be that following the eloquent argument of my hon. friends government members will see the light of reason and intelligence, although that may be too much to expect considering the inflexibility of the government. If by any chance the motion on clause 4 is defeated after full debate, that may be the end of it.


B. Keith Penner: Order please. Is it understood that the matter stands? Is that the suggestion?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I propose that the committee should participate in further debate. I imagine that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Temiscamingue wants to participate, as I do. We might debate all the clauses which are hinged together. After debate ends, we might take a vote on the proposal of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and resolve the matter of clause 4. If that proposal is defeated, that may be the end of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the point of order, may I ask if the Chair has

February 24, 1975
Income Tax
made a final ruling on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain? The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has in his hand a version of the amendment which applies to clause
4.	Of course, we would accept what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain wishes to move. We agree at this stage that it would be better to vote on one amendment to the bill which would carry this principle with respect to all the clauses to which it applies. If that is not so, we could move amendments to clause 4, clause 7 and other relevant parts of the bill. Actually, my point in rising is to ask Your Honour to tell us precisely what the Chair's ruling is at this moment.


B. Keith Penner: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for inviting me to comment at this time. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, who is an able and experienced parliamentarian, must realize that his motion as presented presents certain difficulties to the Chair. The hon. member for Calgary North tried to help the Chair and the committee by referring to Standing Order 75(1). The hon. member suggested that perhaps the Chair has interpreted Standing Order 75(1) too narrowly.
I suggest to him, with the same respect that he accorded the Chair, that the Standing Order itself is narrow and restrictive, but that is not the interpretation. It is narrow and restrictive simply because it says that the committee should deal with the business in hand in a clearcut and precise way. That is how we should deal with this matter if we are to avoid the difficulties which might follow by adopting any other practice. In this case it will be unwise to deviate from this practice and ignore the strictures of Standing Order 75(1).
The amendment is couched in general terms and is not specifically applied to clause 4. As it is phrased in this fashion, the Chair would find it difficult to accept the amendment at this time. Let me add that it is not for the Chair to anticipate which amendments may come forward relating to clause 4 or other clauses.
The terminology of Standing Order 75(1) indicates that consideration of a bill by the committee, clause by clause, is in order; and consideration means both debate and amendment. If we move away from this language, I think we will be in violation of the Standing Order and this will lead to difficulty. For these reasons the Chair finds the amendment in general terms not acceptable.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, as I understood your ruling, you said the amendment is not in order because it is too general in its terms. If the amendment were to zero in on one particular clause, would Your Honour accept it? We could then take one vote. I think the hon. member for Peace River was talking about this. If we are successful in that vote, we can move on to other clauses, but if we fail, that will be the end of it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, may I propose wording which will bring the proposed amendment into order? I have prepared a new copy of the amendment, a copy of which I have sent to the Minister of Finance and another copy of which I will send

to the Chair. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley:
That clause 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto, next after line 43 on page 6, the following:
(6) Subsections 4(2) and (5) and any other provision-
And as on. I have simply deleted certain words to make this motion in order.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The Chair has looked at the proposed amendment to clause 4. If the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain looks at it again, he will see that the difficulty has not been entirely avoided as the words "and any other provision of this act" are still there. Does the hon. member wish to comment?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, for all intents and purposes I am prepared to move this amendment to other clauses. Let me put this on record: if we are not successful with our amendment to clause 4, so far as my party is concerned we will not move any more amendments.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, now the hon. gentleman is talking. If he could cross out the words "necessary and incidental to or consequential upon", and also "subsections 4(2) and (5)", he will be bringing forward an issue which comes under the clause. If the hon. member would be willing to follow the suggestion of the eminent member for Peace River, that would be agreeable to us. As it is, we have some difficulty with the words "necessary and incidental to or consequential upon" because we do not know what they mean and their inclusion leaves the matter open to argument.


B. Keith Penner: If the changes suggested by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain are incorporated, the Chair will be prepared to put the amendment. Certain other words which were mentioned by the Minister of Finance and which may or may not require explanation cannot be the concern of the Chair because they do not involve procedural matters. Therefore, the motion as moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is the following:
That clause 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto, next after line 43 on page 6, the following:
"(6) Subsections 4(2) and (5) to the extent that it is necessary and incidental to or consequential upon those subsections or any of them shall not come into force and have effect as law except upon proclamation of the governor in council following upon the expiration of the 15th day of April 1975."


An hon. Member:: No.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps the committee will consider this for a moment or two. Suppose we say "subsections 4(2) and 5 shall not come into force and have effect as law except upon proclamation", etc. Then let us say that the decision of the committee on this clause shall govern how we are to treat the other clauses.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, if the minister wants to move that motion, I will second it.


John Napier Turner: I will be glad to have that remark on record, for future use.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A seconder is not required in committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, ignoring the preamble for a moment, the amendment would be satisfactory to us if it read:
"Subsections (2) and (5) of this section shall not come into force and have effect as law except upon proclamation of the governor in council upon the expiration of the 15th day of April, 1975."
If he can accept that wording, it seems to me it falls within the purview of what we have in mind.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is exactly what I was trying to say.


B. Keith Penner: The committee has heard the suggestion that the amendment be revised. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: We accept that for its admissibility. We shall argue it tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-Ste. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Manpower-Opportunities for Youth program-Suggested increase in funds to combat unemployment in Atlantic region; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Transport- Increasing Canada's share of maritime traffic under United Nations accord-Government position; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air transport-Defect in Pratt and Whitney jet engine-Compliance of Canadian airlines with modification.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion, public bills.
It is my understanding there is agreement that the House will proceed to consideration of notice of motion No. 16 in the name of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave). Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Cattle Rustling



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat) moved:: That this House, recognizing that cattle rustling is now a big-time criminal racket aided by modern methods and encouraged by high profits and low risk, and has become a serious problem to western cattlemen and the cattle industry, urges the government to enact deterrent cattle rustling laws and to mount an RCMP enforcement offensive against such criminal racketeers.
He said: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, may I say I am pleased that this subject, a favourite of mine since it deals with the cattle industry, is before us for discussion during the private members' hour. Let me begin by briefly recounting the history, the background of cattle rustling in Canada. "Theft" would, of course, be another way of describing it, but cattle rustling is a term which has been glorified, in a way, over the years.
There is nothing new about cattle rustling in western Canada where its incidence is traditionally much higher than in the eastern regions of Canada. As I say, there is much folklore relating to this subject. There are many stories, for example, of cattle herds becoming established as a result of a fast horse and a long and sure loop. There are other stories of unbranded calves being tied by the neck to another calf and trained to follow a new mother cow, resulting in a supposedly very prolific cow herd, with a strong tendency for twins! The owners of such herds were usually considered to be top hands with a rope.
In the early days before fencing, when great cattle herds were the rule, branding was often delayed until mid-summer giving ample time for the unauthorized branding of apparent strays or for the altering of existing brands by means of a quickly heated "running" iron-usually a wagon endgate iron rod with a round eye that could be used to make any combination of brands. Considerable folklore is attached to these stories but there is also concrete evidence that rustling along these lines-and in other ways-did indeed take place. One dramatic piece of western cattle rustling folklore that I have been unable to obtain positive proof of is the stringing-up of the cattle thief on the end of a rope, hung from a convenient limb of a cottonwood tree, out in the middle of the bald prairie where trees just do not grow.
Be that as it may, theft of cattle in various forms still presents a serious problem to the industry and there are clear indications that cattle rustling is on the increase. Rustling in modern days, at least in western Canada, falls into three categories. The first involves the theft of very young calves, usually less than a week old and still unbranded. Most calves are not branded until they are between two and three months of age. These young calves usually spend most of their first few days lying down in a concealed spot not far from their mothers. It is an easy matter to catch such a calf, on foot, without a horse, and toss it into the trunk of a car. A young calf like this must be immediately transplanted to another cow if it is to live. This is a difficult job but not an impossible one for an experienced stockman. The insidious part of this form of

February 24, 1975
Cattle Rustling
theft is that the thief is usually someone from your own neighbourhood. It is difficult to sell such young calves because most auction markets have regulations for bidding sales of very young calves.
The second category concerns the shooting of cattle, mainly in the fall of the year, usually during the hunting season. When meat prices are high-and they have been high over the last several years-it is a strong temptation for a hunter who has been unsuccessful in a game hunt to shoot a young, grass-fat steer, or heifer, or a cow, dress it out on the spot and put the carcass in a deep freezer at home. Very often such crimes take place near our larger cities and in far too many cases liquor is a factor in the deliberate actions of these unsuccessful game hunters.
The third category of cattle theft is the most daring and deliberate and it is premeditated and planned well in advance. In this type of theft any number of cows, from one or two to complete truckloads, are brazenly stolen for disposal later, usually in another province. In most cases they are trucked many miles, usually to another province-and in one case they were trucked across the United States border; this occurred within the last year-to a distant, live cattle market where they are sold and the covering brand on the stolen cattle is claimed as the legal brand of the thief.
Some provincial brand departments now have computerized brand records, and this is definitely helping to contain this form of rustling. In other cases the stolen cattle are trucked or even trailed on foot to another location where the brands are altered or "worked" into an entirely new brand. A conviction was recently obtained for this kind of theft in southern Alberta, and the thief was caught because he did not allow the altered brand time enough to heal properly with a new hair coat before he tried to sell the cattle. In this particular case a considerable number of cattle were involved; he got a little overconfident.
In still further cases these animals are privately butchered and the meat sold privately, or goes into the deep freeze again. These kinds of thefts can occur anywhere in Canada where cattle are confined for feeding. Just recently there was a case of some six to ten head reported stolen from a farm not far from Ottawa. These cattle were out of a herd of about 300 head, and the thefts took place over a one-month period.
I should now like to comment on the specifics of cattle rustling, convictions, and sentences passed on these cattle thieves. In earlier days punishment on conviction was much more severe than it is today. Today a person convicted of rustling or theft of cattle usually receives a sentence of one day in jail and a fine, or a suspended sentence, or jail from one day to six months. Very seldom does a convicted rustler receive a sentence of over six months unless he had previous convictions of some note.
Cattle theft charges are usually brought under section 294 of the Criminal Code. If the value of the property, in this case cattle, is over $200, the penalty can go as high as ten years' imprisonment. In other words, the traditional sentences passed on modern-day cattle thieves are com-

pletely unrealistic, as in most cases all mature animals stolen are worth well over $200.
Under section 400 of the Criminal Code, sentences for killing, maiming, wounding, poisoning or injuring cattle allow up to five years in jail. In comparison, breaking and entering under section 306 calls for a penalty of up to life imprisonment if the premises broken into are a dwelling-house, and up to 14 years if the place is other than a dwelling-house. Most breaking and entering convictions involve far less value than the value of cattle stolen or killed.
I suggest that consideration should also be given to the small cattle producer who raises only a few head, or feeds a few head, for whom cattle theft represents a loss of a large part of his profit considering the size of his operation. I must say that it must be most discouraging to law officers, provincial brand offices and cattle producers when the penalty imposed is very light or the case is dismissed. In some cases, such as in the area of the foothills country west of Calgary, cattlemen have organized viligante groups to patrol their own areas at night, especially during the hunting season. The purpose is, of course, to protect their own property and cattle.
In only one case that I am aware of has there been a more realistic sentence for cattle theft, and this was very recently. It was a case that occurred north of Edmonton and a sentence of two years was given for butchering a cow on an Indian reserve. The accomplice in this particular case was sentenced to nine months. Both were charged under section 294 of the Criminal Code for theft of property over $200.
In Alberta over the last five complete years-that is, from 1970 through to 1974 inclusive-there were 10,859 cattle reported missing, another 1,248 reported stolen; 196 cattle were recovered and 161 convictions were obtained. This figure for convictions applies only to the first four years, not to the year 1974; I presume they were not available for that year. During 1974, the final year within the bracket, in Alberta some 225 cases showed some evidence of cattle offences, as a result of which 45 charges were laid by police. I have been unable to obtain the number of convictions in Alberta in 1974.
Over the same five year period-1970 to 1974 inclusive- in Saskatchewan some 5,457 head were reported missing, of which 1,479 were recovered. These Saskatchewan figures are higher-that is to say, the incidence of theft is on the increase-in spite of increased surveillance by farmers, provincial stock inspectors and the RCMP. In 1974, in Saskatchewan, only three persons were charged with theft of cattle; two of these were convicted and the third case is still outstanding. I have been unable to obtain the number of charges laid in Saskatchewan during 1974; I presume there were a fair number.
In British Columbia, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association have assured me that the incidence of cattle rustling is still probably on the increase and they want to see heavier sentences on conviction. They suggest that if longer jail sentences are not appropriate for the courts-and sometimes we seem to think that is the only reason for not giving longer jail sentences-then the B.C. Cattlemen's Association would like to see much heavier fines handed
February 24, 1975

out as a meaningful deterrent, and in this respect I certainly agree with them.
I want to read a resolution that was passed at the last annual meeting of the Western Stock Growers Association, which is the Alberta commercial cattlemen's group that met in Edmonton earlier this month. One resolution that is right on this subject reads as follows:
Whereas it is our understanding that special livestock investigators of K Division, RCMP are unable to advance in rank beyond corporal while remaining on this assignment,
And whereas this encourages good experienced men to accept transfer to other assignments at about the time that their accumulated experience could be most useful to the lifestock industry
Therefore be it resolved that we continue to request the formation of a separate branch within the RCMP for livestock investigators.
They pointed out during the discussion of this resolution that lack of advancement for special stock investigators is a real factor in getting good, qualified RCMP officers to specialize in this type of work.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I wish to suggest very seriously that there is a twofold need in our Canadian cattle industry to reduce cattle theft and other unaccounted for losses that cannot be documented. First of all, I suggest there is a genuine need for much stiffer penalties, either jail sentences or fines, or both, by our courts of law. Secondly, we need stepped up surveillance and inspection by the RCMP with the formation of a separate branch within the RCMP for this purpose.
If it would be in order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest that I would be willing to withdraw my notice of motion to allow this subject matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for further decision and referral for action to the two departments concerned, the Department of Justice and the office of the Solicitor General. I would truly hope there is enough broad interest on all sides of the House that this subject will be allowed to go to the committee this afternoon.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing some of the comments from my colleagues here I am a little tempted to go into some of the folklore to which the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) referred a little while ago, but I will not do that. I do want to state that I made a commitment to the cattlemen in my riding following the last two elections, and I represent a number of cattlemen in the constituency of Kamloops-Cariboo. I assured them that there would be at least one little Indian down here who was concerned about the cowboys out there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: I am not going to take up too much time during this debate, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat has very adequately and eloquently put the position of Canadian cattlemen with regard to cattle rustling. There is a lot of concern about cattle rustling in the provinces where cattle raising is practised. I have received a number of representations from cattlemen in British Columbia, particularly after my introduction of a private member's bill at the session
Cattle Rustling
before this and at this session. I have received a number of calls from all over the prairie region in respect of that bill, most of which were in favour of seeing the contents adopted.
My particular bill would stiffen the penalties for cattle rustling. This has been one of the greatest concerns of cattlemen, that the penalties being dished out have not been stiff enough to act as a deterrent to future cattle rustlers. My bill would have done the following:
Every person who commits theft of cattle is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable
(a)	to imprisonment for ten years, where the value of the cattle
exceed fifty dollars, or
(b)	to imprisonment for two years, where the value of the cattle does
not exceed fifty dollars provided that a minimum sentence in either
case shall be imprisonment for one year.
I am not going to be dogmatic about this as I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) are giving this consideration. Private member's bills do not always see the light of day, but I suggest the purpose of bringing these bills forward-and I suspect this is the purpose of the hon. member's motion-is to make sure that the government of Canada realizes that the cattlemen in this country are concerned about this serious problem of cattle rustling. It is still a problem in this country. I have a copy of a press release by the British Columbia Cattlemen which points out that ranchers in that province each year lose between 200 and 400 head to cattle rustlers. This is still a very serious problem and I would concur in the words of the hon. member for Medicine Hat in respect of this problem.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, coming from an area where cattle rustling is a very recent thing, I am pleased to support this motion. I am also pleased that the parliamentary secretary has indicated there is little disagreement with the suggestion that it be referred to the committee. I would like to see that action taken, but I would offer a word of caution in respect of the use of the RCMP in a special way under this legislation, particularly in Ontario and Quebec where we have provincial police forces which enforce the Criminal Code. It would be rather difficult for the RCMP to get involved in an investigation that normally takes place under the jurisdiction of the provincial police force.
Cattle rustling is a very insidious type of theft, the type that does lend itself to vigilante action. I think this is an additional reason for providing strong enough penalties to discourage this type of theft. I know of the case of a farmer who left his farm under the care of his 15 year-old son. The son heard a truck back up to the barn door. He got a gun and went out to see what was happening. When the driver of the truck had finished loading cattle, he advanced toward the son, who shot and killed him. It was finally decided that the son shot in self-defence because the man advanced toward him; therefore, the boy was being attacked. I would suggest that this is not the way to solve the problem. We must come up with a better solution. If this motion should become a legislative act of this parliament, we should include in it some way of forcing insurance companies to live up to their insurance bargains.
3512

February 24, 1975
Cattle Rustling
I live in an area where we have a federal community pasture. The cattle put into that pasture are insured against loss. The government does not supply continuous supervision of the pasture and each year four or five head of cattle are lost. When the farmer learns of the theft, which is usually when he takes the cattle out of the pasture or when the supervisor informs the farmers collectively that according to his count there are not enough cattle in the pasture, he reports it to the insurance company and makes a claim. However, in no case of which I am aware has the insurance company been willing to accept its responsibility. They decline to pay on two grounds. First, they say that the claim was made too long after the fact for there to be any effective police action and therefore the company has not been notified by the farmer within a reasonable time or in time for the police to carry out an investigation. For that reason they renounce their responsibility and refuse to make payment.
The second ground on which the insurance companies refuse to make payment is that the farmer cannot prove that the animal he put into the community pasture is the animal that was stolen from it, or that he no longer has possession of the animal. In other words, the suggestion is that he may have taken it home, and the company refuses to pay.
As a result, it seems to me that we are faced with a problem in that the farmer is not able to defend his own property, particularly in the way the young lad did to whom I referred. I suggest that we are not prepared to allow farmers to protect their property in that way. In addition, I am not in favour of establishing in Ontario vigilante groups of farmers to protect their cattle either during the hunting season or during the off-season. If we are not willing to allow that, then we must assure the farmers that somebody else will do it.
I think our police forces should have the assurance that, if they do the work that is necessary leading to a conviction, that conviction will be a deterrent to others. It is quite easy, regardless of whether it is in western or eastern Canada, for a person to drive by a field with some cattle in it and to take one animal without any difficulty. In most instances cattle are domesticated and not hard to catch. The rustler can put the cattle in this truck, be on his way, and later slaughter the cattle for his own use or for limited commercial use. The reward is considerable and the risk fairly small.
Protection must be given in a number of ways. We should develop a system of marking cattle that is more effective than the one we use now, namely, the system of ear tags. As soon as the ear tag is removed, the evidence is gone. It is. quite true that a farmer, if he has only 200 or 300 head of cattle, can tell whether one is his cow or not. But it is difficult to prove in court. It can be proven by the hide, but in any case it is difficult.
Farmers must be protected by law, from this type of theft, and I agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) that the penalties for this type of theft must be increased. The difficulty that I see with this motion-and of course the committee would be able to deal with the problem-is with regard to jurisdiction. As

I said, in Ontario and Quebec different police methods are used from those in western Canada, and therefore the act as it affects Quebec and Ontario would be limited in scope unless a change where made in the administration of the RCMP. Since I do not think such a change is likely to take place, I think the act will have to be amended to include other police forces in those areas.
The other point is with regard to the valuation of the animals. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) mentioned a minimum of $50. Perhaps this might be effective now, but it would certainly not have been effective in the case of a dropped calf a day or two old, a year or year and half ago. So if we accept the minimum of $50, the animals that are being stolen would not even be worth carrying away. Cattle should be valued fairly highly. It is hard to tell what the figure should be when you are dealing with a carcass, even if the carcass is available, which in most cases it is not.
My main concern is that one of the ways in which the farmer has tried to protect himself has been through insurance. The second way has been to have his animal graze on a community pasture where there is some supervision. In my area a number of farmers have been disappointed in both respects. They have not been able to collect insurance on the animals they have had in the community pasture, and the insurance companies have held the federal government responsible for negligence in supervision. The companies have argued and debated the point successfully as to whether or not a farmer can prove that the animal he put in such a pasture is no longer there. Although they agree that the total count has been reduced, they are not willing to accept that a particular animal has disappeared, because of the difficulty in proving when it disappeared.
I hope that the notice of motion put forward by the hon. member will receive the approval of the House and will, in time, become legislation because, in view of the high cost of meat today and the inability to supervise pastures or even stables, there has been a great increase in rustling in Ontario as well as in western Canada. If we allow the legislation to remain as it is now, farmers will be inclined and strongly motivated to defend their own property in their own way. If we allow this, those who condemn the use of fire arms, will find an increase in their use because farmers will be forced to defend their own property. Accidental shootings will occur when farmers decide to defent themselves against a fairly organized group of people engaged in rustling.
There are indications in my area that many of the thefts that are taking place are well planned and well thought out. Some organization moves in from another community and a number of thefts take place in one night. There was a case in the Toronto stockyards this year of the provincial police being able to give a description of the truck used by rustlers. The truck was stopped in the stockyard, the owners of the truck were apprehended and the cattle returned to the area. But that was an exceptional case.
Most of the thefts are successful, and for that reason farmers are overly apprehensive about the thefts that take place, about the inability of the police to do anything and the willingness of insurance companies to compensate for the thefts. Farmers are in a mood to take matters in their
February 24, 1975

own hands, so I strongly urge the committee to consider seriously accepting the motion before us today.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate not because I believe I am an expert on farm or animal matters, far from that, but to indicate on behalf of the department I am representing the legal aspect of the matter now before us.
But let me first commend the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) for the truly honest and interesting way in which he explained the problem, a very serious one as may easily be concluded.
Statistical data submitted by the hon. member clearly show the problem has reached alarming proportions, so it seems quite normal for the government to consider the question and look for a possible solution in a relatively near future.
Sections 283 and 294 as well as paragraph 298(3) of the Criminal Code apply. Section 283 gives a definition of a theft.
Under section 294, where the value of what is stolen does not exceed $200 the penalty is imprisonment for up to two years. Where the value of what is stolen exceeds $200, the person who committed the theft is liable to imprisonment for a maximum ten years. Paragraph 298(3) provides that where an accused is charged with theft of cattle, the burden of proving that the cattle came lawfully in the possession of the accused rests with the latter.
In addition to sections applicable to theft of cattle, paragraph 298(3) of the Criminal Code states the act of fraudulently taking cattle that are found astray or fraudulently defacing a brand or mark on cattle is an indictable offence. Such offences entail imprisonment for five years.
Cattle industry representatives, in their briefs, suggest sentences imposed for theft of cattle do not have the adequate preventive effect needed in this type of criminal act. The hon. member also made representations to that effect. The representatives of cattle breeders also expressed the opinion that the Criminal Code should impose a minimum penalty on cattle rustling.
At their meeting in May 1973, the attorneys general tried to see whether the Criminal Code might be amended concerning cattle theft. Unfortunately, we could not come to an agreement. While representatives of a province recommended imposing a minimum penalty, spokesmen for other provinces proposed to amend the Criminal Code so that cattle rustling be made a crime liable to ten years' imprisonment.
For some time, there has been a clear tendency in amendments to the code to avoid minimum penalties. It results from the fact that the people in charge of the administration of justice generally believe that courts should be left the freedom to impose the sentence that they feel is the most appropriate in each case. If the attorney general considers the sentence inappropriate, he may appeal.
Fully aware of the problems created by cattle rustling, the government hopes to move a bill to amend the Criminal Code appropriately during this session.
Cattle Rustling
Although it is up to Parliament to enact criminal legislation, enforcing the consequential regulations and the provisions of the Criminal Code rests with the provincial authorities, as my hon. friend knows.
Thus I must say to the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) that his problem, as he knows, has already been examined by the government, but the representations he made today may urge them to act more rapidly and, as I think we should do, without any referring to a committee. I believe that this study makes it unnecessary to refer the problem to a committee for the time being, as I hopefully think-and of course this is not a commitment- we may admit among ourselves that it is quite likely this matter will soon result in concrete measures.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) for bringing forward this most worth-while motion concerning cattle rustling, and to note as well the comments by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), who has a private member's bill on the order paper of similar portent that is, directed toward stiffer fines for cattle rustling and action by the government to provide some deterrent with respect to this very serious problem.
The hon. member outlined the representations he had received from groups in western Canada, the various stock producer groups, and I think that he had it very well documented, but I believe that this problem exists-perhaps not on as broad a scale because the cattle populations may not be as great-in Ontario as well. Of course the policing there is done by the Ontario provincial police.
It seems to me that this motion should be given serious consideration by the government. I know that in my own area, especially during this past year and a half when cattle prices have risen to very high levels-of course they have fallen off somewhat since the peak period-there were many cases of animals being rustled. I refer not only to the classic example of an animal being driven away, or loaded and carried away, but often animals were slaughtered right on the farm and the Carcasses taken away. Sometimes it seemed to be a more wasteful and senseless situation, where the more valuable rear quarters of the animal would be taken away and the remainder left to rot on the ground.
It seems to me, when we look at all the difficulties of farming today and the disparity in prices, that often the most valuable animal, that is, the fat, finished animal, is the one which will be stolen or rustled and slaughtered. It is not just confined to the beef animal. Often in my own constituency of Algoma dairy animals are stolen and slaughtered. Of course in this instance the animals involved are valuable. The farmer is not only losing the animal but also the milk which would be produced over the years.
I am very happy to join with other hon. members who are looking toward stiffer fines and deterrents with respect to this serious problem for our farm population.
28996-I8V2

February 24, 1975
Income Tax


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for consideration of private members' business now having expired, would the House agree to our reverting to committee of the House before the Chair calls it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-49, to amend the statute laws relating to income tax- Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the Chair.
Gérald Laniel: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.51 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, in making some comments and asking some questions on clause 4 of Bill C-49 I want to begin by supporting the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. It seems to me that the suggestion that certain subclauses of clause 4 and certain subclauses of clause 7 should be held in abeyance until the first ministers' meeting has been held would not only be appropriate but, I think, would be only common courtesy. The Premier of Saskatchewan, Premier A. E. Blakeney, wired the Minister of Finance on February 18 suggesting such a procedure, and I imagine that other premiers would also welcome the government's agreement to this request.
I think it should be kept in mind that almost a year ago now the Prime Minister met with the premiers of the provinces in this city in an effort to resolve a very difficult problem. That problem was that the oil-producing provinces, facing a rapid depletion of their oil and gas resources, wanted higher prices to buttress them against the very serious crises that were facing them for the future, whereas the federal government wanted to keep prices below the world price. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that we in this party in this House of Commons

supported the government in every possible endeavour to keep the price down, and exercised what little influence we had with some of the provincial governments to keep the price down.
Out of that discussion between the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces, the oil-producing provinces agreed to a price of $6.50 a barrel despite the fact that the international price was much higher. The Prime Minister, who was very glad to succeed in getting such a concession, came out of the conference saying this was a great day for Canadian federalism, and he praised the premiers of the two provinces for taking steps which we all, including the government, welcomed.
The premiers of the provinces went back to their respective capitals convinced that an agreement had been reached with respect to the matter of resources and that an agreement had been reached with respect to the revenues they could anticipate getting from their resources. They were hardly home before the Minister of Finance, who must have been privy to those discussions at the first ministers' conference, brought down a budget which changed the whole picture with respect to the revenues which would go to the different levels of government from resource taxation. It is little wonder that the premiers were indignant and hostile-little wonder that they expressed the opinion that they had been double-crossed and that no information had been given to them that the government intended to bring down the kind of provisions which are in this legislation, particularly in clauses 4 and 7.
It seems to me that it would fair and proper that the government should agree not to proclaim these clauses that are so controversial until after the first ministers' meeting. It would do the premiers the courtesy of allowing them to have their day in court to present their case to the Prime Minister and his colleagues. If they can persuade the Prime Minister and his colleagues that the measures contained in Bill C-49 are detrimental to the best interests of this country and are harmful to the international community, then the government does not need to proclaim these controversial clauses.
On the other hand if the government is not convinced, it has lost nothing; it can then, by order in council, proclaim the offensive clauses and they would come into effect. All the government will have done then will have been to show some courtesy to the premiers, having given them an opportunity to express their opinions.
It is rather significant that when the matter was one of deciding how much or how little revenue the provinces would get, there was a conference. Everybody was appealed to on the grounds of national interest. Provinces were asked to take less money than they could otherwise have secured. But when it comes to how much revenue the federal government is going to take in resource taxes, that is done without consultation, without any opportunity for the provinces to sit around the table to develop and present their respective points of view. I can understand why the provinces feel very resentful about this matter.
As has already been said, a precedent was set last year in the government's handling of the foreign investment
February 24, 1975

review bill. I think all opposition parties asked the government not to proclaim Part II until the matter had been further investigated and the provinces had been consulted. The government acceded to that request. It has not proclaimed Part II, and whether that decision is wise or unwise is a matter for debate. At least the government recognized that the provinces have an interest in what is done in this House, particularly in matters which affect their jurisdiction.
For as long as I have watched the Liberal Party at close quarters, that party has held itself out as the champion of national unity. It is the party which "can hold Canada together." Yet some actions the party has taken recently have done more to destroy national unity than anything else that has been done for many years. It is difficult to explain that attitude.
I listened to the Minister of Finance say on a radio interview, that we would not agree to postpone the proclamation of any part of this bill because, after all, the government had been given a majority, it had introduced the May budget, and the people had given their approval. I doubt whether the public was aware of the implication of the clauses we are now discussing. I doubt if this was a public issue. I doubt if even the premiers are fully aware of the implications of clauses 4 and 7. The position of the Minister of Finance that the government, because of its majority, can ride roughshod over the rights of this House and of the provincial governments is a shortsighted one.
This country is in trouble. This government is in trouble; it must deal with unemployment, with inflation, with transportation which in the words of one of its own members is in a mess, and with housing difficulties. It needs the co-operation of provincial governments and it is not doing what it should to secure that co-operation.
Why do I say that? In March, 1974, the government obtained concessions from the provinces. Then, some months afterwards, the government did something which could do nothing but antagonize and hurt the provinces, and discourage the kind of co-operation which is necessary if there is to be unity in this country.
Let me deal briefly with some other matters. First, let me ask the minister; what is the rationale behind refusing corporations the right to deduct, from their income tax payments, royalty payments and taxes paid to provinces? This has never been done in the history of Canada. For years it has been recognized that royalties paid to the Crown in right of a province were to be exempt from income tax. Now, without warning, an unprecedented step has been taken. In the second reading debate the Minister of Finance said that the government is doing this because it has the right to a share of resource revenue. I submit that there are other ways in which the federal government can obtain its share of resource revenue.
I also point out, that the Minister of Finance has overlooked something else. Royalties are not taxes in the ordinary sense of the word, in the sense that they are income that can be repeated over a period of years. The royalties to which this legislation applies, that is, royalties on minerals, oil and gas, are paid on rapidly depleting resources. They are payments which are made to the provinces for the loss of an important part of their public domain which cannot be replaced. It is interesting to note,
Income Tax
and if I am wrong I hope the minister will correct me, that we do not adopt this position with renewable resources. But with respect to non-renewable resources, resources with respect to which the federal government ought not to deprive provincial governments of revenue, the government has adopted its position as outlined in this bill.
The minister has also lost sight of something else. The royalties which a provincial government receives do not represent a net gain. Not only do they represent payment for a depleting resource; they represent also payment for the infrastructure which the provincial government must supply if resources are to be effectively extracted. You cannot put down a mine or set up an oil industry or gas industry without building roads, establishing towns or villages, or without building houses, schools and hospitals. In short, in order to make such industries effective and productive, the province must provide almost the entire infrastructure. So the money which a province receives from royalties is not clear gain, is not "buckshee" as it were. A good part of these revenues must be spent by the province, either to build infrastructure or to provide funds for future exploration and development.
On examining this legislation one gets the uneasy feeling that there is a sinister motive behind it, and that the non-deductibility of royalty payments is merely a step to discouraging provincial governments from moving into the ownership and the control of the oil and gas industry. After some of the provinces said, "We might as well take those industries over for ourselves", the minister, either on radio or television said, "Well, we can tax Crown corporations". If this legislation represents the first step in preventing provincial governments from moving into the ownership and control of resource development, it is very sinister legislation indeed. All over the world, except in north America-Mexico is an exception because that country nationalized its oil industry long ago-governments are moving to take over control of the oil and gas industry.
Despite anything the federal government may do, the provinces may be forced into this field. Actually, the federal government itself is being forced into it. The great oil companies which used to talk about standing on their own feet, not depending on the government, and opposing government intervention, now say, "We shall put up a plant to extract oil from the tar sands, provided you give us $1 billion. We shall build a pipe line from Sarnia to Montreal provided you guarantee us from any loss." So we are getting government intervention already, except that it is intervention on the terms of the oil companies.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Come on, Tommy, you are just romancing us now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
chances are that when the first ministers meet in April, the federal government will insist on its share of the pie and the provincial governments will complain that this will mean reduced revenues from their royalties, and the whole affair will finally be settled by an agreement to raise the price of crude oil, thus allowing for all the parties to keep the share they presently have. That may well be the solution adopted-to raise the price of crude oil from

February 24, 1975
Income Tax
$6.50 to $8.50 a barrel. The federal government would do well, the provincial governments would do well, but the consumers will pay through the nose.
Much as I sympathize with the oil-producing provinces I say to the minister that we shall oppose any increase in the price of crude oil unless the increase is to be set aside in a fund to provide for exploration and development. If this is not to be the situation, if even greater profits are to accrue to the oil companies, then I say the federal government and the provincial governments are simply conniving to settle their differences at the expense of the consumer. The oil companies have made fabulous profits at $6.50 a barrel, and at $8.50 a barrel their profits would be even more obscene.
It is not my intention during the discussion of this clause to make any speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Those were just preliminary remarks?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If hon. members across the way are yelling "encore", I will be glad to oblige. I have five or six speeches in my desk if hon. members want to listen. However, I think it would be more productive if I could ask the minister some questions. I should like him to tell us whether the royalties are to be non-deductible either on a flat rate basis or on an accelerated basis. The claim has been that it has been these accelerated or graduated royalties which have eroded the federal government's share. Are flat royalties to be deductible?
I should also like the minister to tell us whether the oil companies which have leased land from the CPR, from the Hudsons Bay Company or from any private corporation on which they pay royalties are to have the benefit of deductibility in respect of those royalties. I understand they are deductible. But if royalties paid to private corporations are deductible, how does the minister justify insisting that royalties paid to the Crown are not deductible?
I want to ask the minister whether Canadian companies operating in a foreign country and paying royalties to the host government will receive a similar benefit in respect of those royalties. If those royalties are deductible, how does the hon. gentleman explain a situation in which royalties paid to a government in Canada are not deductible?
I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to a letter he wrote on January 24, 1974, to the presidents of Imperial Oil, Gulf Oil and Cities Service Limited, in the last paragraph of which he stated:
Bill C-49 does not provide for the tax treatment of the Syncrude project as outlined above, but I assure you that the necessary measures will be taken to achieve this result before any relevant federal income taxes become exigible. In all other respects the provisions of the existing income tax law and the other recently proposed amendments thereto will, of course, apply to the Syncrude operations.
I want to ask the minister how he proposes to keep that commitment. Will he bring in amendments to this legislation? Will he, perhaps, use the instrument of the Financial Administration Act which, in my opinion, would be a dubious and devious course to follow?
I think he ought to tell us also what he meant by his statement in the House during the question period that, as far as the Syncrude project is concerned-I notice that in his letter he talks always about the Syncrude joint venture-not a corporation.


Mr. Benjamin:: Some joint. That is a low joint.


An hon. Member:: Get back into your space.


B. Keith Penner: I have to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. Perhaps he might now resume his seat and allow the minister to answer some of those questions.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That is question No. 22.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: could complete this question it would save me getting up again, and the minister could probably answer them all at the same time.


John Napier Turner: You have a pretty loose-jointed supporter there in Benjamin.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I won a lot of ball games.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: could get the hon. member for St. Boniface to play ball with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, perhaps I could get on with my question.
The minister said during the question period that the tax situation applicable to the Syncrude project would remain as it was in 1973. I should like him to clarify that statement. I should like to know whether the Syncrude partners will get the 100 per cent depletion allowance rather than the 30 per cent allowance-whether the 33 per cent depletion allowance will be automatic, as it is under the old legislation, or whether it will have to be earned as is the case under the new legislation? Most important of all, I want to ask the minister whether the concession which the government has granted to the Syncrude partners will apply to the over all operations of the corporations engaged in that joint venture. In other words, will Imperial Oil, Gulf Oil and Cities Service be able to write off their Syncrude investment against their other operations? The minister shakes his head. I can hear it from here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I shall have to tighten it up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: want to tell the minister that if this is not the case he had better tell the President of Gulf and the President of Imperial, because they have both said on the electronic media that they will be able to write off their investment and thus save Imperial Oil $150 million a year and Gulf Oil $75 million a year-that it will save them almost $1.5 billion in four and a half years.
Either the minister has not made himself very clear to these people, or they are mistaken. If they are mistaken,

February 24, 1975

the minister had better tell them. However, I suspect they are not mistaken and that they do have a firm undertaking that they will get this kind of treatment. If they do, then it will be one of the most shameful sell-outs ever seen in this country. If we hand these people $1 billion over four and a half years this will mean that the Canadian people will be paying for about 80 per cent of the cost of the Syncrude plants.
These are questions that we would like answered. We will not hold up these clauses, but we are going to ask questions. We do not want suave evasions or flippant irrelevancies; what we want are answers, and we are prepared to stay here until we get answers. I hope the minister will clear up the points which have been raised, and we will have other questions to ask as we go along.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, as I represent a fairly important mining area of our country, I feel I must say a few words on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) which strikes me as very reasonable at this point. The hon. member is not asking that the act be changed, nor that part of the bill be deleted; he merely suggest postponing the passing of clause 4 of Bill C-49 dealing with mining corporations' taxes with regard to royalties or subsidies paid to them.
Mr. Chairman, I see in that clause a direct attack upon private enterprise. We are advised that, in my area alone, dozens of new mining companies will hesitate to set up operations, because they know Bill C-49 will paralyze their activities. A while ago, the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said that some companies would be overtaxed to the extent where they will be unable to operate.
But the hon. member should have told the House that if he were sitting in the minister's seat, he would suggest immediate nationalization of those companies; but such is not the case now. They will not be nationalized, but the robbing advocated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) with regard to mining and other companies is not much better.
Yesterday, I got a telegram from a mining company operating in my area, the Falconbridge Copper Limited, Lake Dufault Division.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Welfare bums.


David Réal Caouette: We have 450 people living out of that exploitation, whereas if we had your kind of government not one of them would be working.

Mr. Chairman, in Lac Dufault, where I live now- [English]
This mine says it is most concerned over the impending proclamation of clause 4 of Bill C-49 and suggests-

On this point, I would like the hon. minister to hear.
Income Tax

It suggests that a separate proclamation date be set for clause 4; such date would be determined after further consultations between the federal government and the governments of the provinces. I think it is fair to say that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said he was doubtful whether the minister had some links outside this country with multinationals, so that they cannot do anything for our internal companies or for the Canadian people. I do not think it is the case, having known the minister so well for so many years. He even gave me the chance in the last election to be re-elected. He made some good comments about me when I was in hospital, and that was quite a help. For that matter, the NDP did exactly the same thing.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We love you.


John Napier Turner: Except that they did not have a chance up there.


David Réal Caouette: And they knew it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not
like the Liberals; they did not have a chance and they did not know it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I think that this suggestion by Falconbridge, of Lac Dufault, is worth its weight in gold. We do not ask the government to delete clause 4, but we ask them to hold meetings with the provincial authorities before coming to a final decision because, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said, it is true that there is now some disagreement between the provinces and the federal government. It is so true that, in other areas, Quebec Liberal members in Ottawa are being accused by the premier of Quebec of plotting behind his back to defeat him as leader of the Liberal party in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Réal Caouette: Everybody knows that. I saw the premier on television the night before last, I read the newspapers yesterday morning. Is the premier right or not? I do not know, it is none of my business, but the premier goes after the Quebec Liberal members in Ottawa saying that they are the ones who challenge his leadership in the province of Quebec. So the Liberals from Quebec are displeased. Mr. Lougheed of Alberta is displeased. Mr. Schreyer of Manitoba is displeased. Mr. Barrett of British Columbia is displeased. Mr. Davis is not pleased either. That one is never pleased!
Mr. Chairman, if at a new meeting or the next meeting of premiers with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that issue were discussed so as to allow for an expansion of our naturel resources it seems to me that would help the whole country. Assistance for Alberta, favourable fallouts for Quebec or the Maritimes, favourable fallouts for western Canada, that is what needs to be examined.

Income Tax
Mr. Chairman, if this bill prevents the creation of new industries and jobs which would promote the development of our resources, could it be that the government is more interested in paying out unemployment insurance benefits, welfare allowances than granting tax exemptions to help private enterprise-I do not say free enterprise, free to exploit and rip off everybody-but an honest private enterprise?


An hon. Member:: That makes a difference.


David Réal Caouette: That makes a
difference.
Government or private enterprise; there is a difference between the two and they don't know it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have to find a lamp to find it.


David Réal Caouette: All right, you help me and we will find it.

Mr. Chairman, I think instead of contributing social welfare allowances, we should do like the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and say: From now on, we assure you that you will get a $5,000 guaranteed annual income. If you earn $4,000 a year, you will be paid $1,000, and if you earn $5,025 a year, you will be paid nothing.
Instead of contributing social welfare allowances and unemployment insurance benefits, the government should grant tax exemptions which would enable private companies to create new jobs and expand their industries. If the creation of 15 new mining sites were made possible in my area, there would not be one unemployed worker left; we now have a 14 per cent rate of unemployment instead. The companies that might develop a copper, zinc, silver, nickel or gold mining prospect do not want to move their little finger because they think the government will snatch everything away. That is an important matter which the Department of Finance should look into. The minister with his top advisers, the government in cabinet should study the possibility of actually helping fight not only unemployment, but inflation too.
Mr. Chairman, a good fifteen new mining companies would suddenly spring into existence in my area. But we keep getting the same shilly-shallying, the same procrastination, and the government, as soon as there is some talk about establishing such a new company, comes up with its threats: "We are going to increase your taxes, to tax your royalties, to tax subsidies, we are going to crush you down." That is what provinces are fighting against now.
Those were the few comments I wanted to make. I would like the Minister of Finance to take into consideration the suggestion I got from Mr. Wright, the Manager of Dufault Lake Falconbridge Copper Limited Company. He made that suggestion, but other corporations might have as well. The mining industry is worried. They are waiting for the government and the Minister of Finance to assure them that they will be able to operate their mines with a profit, instead of at a loss.

And profits in the mining industry are not so exorbitant either. The price of copper is down. In the case of gold, nobody knows. Its price on the world or so-called open market is quite high, but it is still in a tight or restrained situation on the official or legal market.
Mr. Chairman, if the minister contemplates the possible creation of new mining industries, let him wait until he has had discussions again with the provinces, especially if the meeting is to take place on April 15 at the latest. This question should be settled once and for all, so that each and every province may be assured that its autonomy will be respected. They need the assurance that the federal government will help them and provide them with the necessary means for their full development. Then the Minister of Finance will have been of great service not only to provincial governments, but to the whole Canadian population as well.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain as I believe that clauses 4 and 7 should not be proclaimed until after the first ministers' meeting. I think that when the minister spoke to the Canadian Club in Toronto he had this in mind. He was speaking of the economy, and when he came to the oil and gas industry he said that the third problem involved providing incentives for the development of new energy reserves without permitting oil and gas prices to rise more quickly than is appropriate or necessary.
The minister stated, as reported in the Globe and Mail of January 28:
We have long recognized the need to narrow the differential between the domestic and international price of petroleum to encourage both the development of new reserves and the conservation of existing stocks.
The minister also suggested at that time that the timing and extent of increases in domestic oil prices would be a foremost concern at the federal-provincial meetings in April. He said that within a reasonable period the major elements of uncertainty in the resource field, including taxation, pricing and markets, should be resolved.
Keeping this in mind, what is the point in proceeding with these taxation measures at this time, because quite obviously the price of oil, gas and minerals depends on what takes place at the meetings in April? I should like the minister at least to comment on this situation. I know he cannot be specific, but he said that the differential between domestic and world prices should not be too great, or that the difference needs to be narrowed. It would be interesting to find out what the government feels the price difference should be in order to make sure that the oil and gas industry is healthy and can provide Canadians with a reasonably secured supply.
With the realization that the number of rigs drilling for conventional oil in Alberta has been reduced, it seems important that this resource taxation field be straightened out. By passing these two clauses it would seem that the government in effect is saying to the provinces that this is the federal government's stand, it cannot or will not back off, and if there are to be any changes the provinces will have to make them. Certainly the passage of these clauses can be construed as nothing else but a provocative and
February 24, 1975

antagonistic attitude toward the provinces. This attitude might not be so bad if we did not face the prospect that we are running behind in respect of cheap conventional oil.
Let us consider our balance of payments problems. We had a deficit on current account for 1974 of $2.5 billion, and it is estimated that we will have a deficit of $3 billion this year. Last year there was a surplus in petroleum, oil and natural gas of $1.6 billion. Oil imports are expected to bring to the petroleum trade alone a deficit of $2.3 billion in 1980, and $4.4 billion in 1984. Surely this will have a significant effect on the future of the country, and what the Prime Minister will decide with the provinces when he meets them will be of great importance, because overcoming oil deficits is an important and difficult problem for Canada to face. We would be less than prudent if we did not make sure that the oil industry had a reasonable return and there was reasonable activity to bring on new supplies.
With regard to minerals, again it seems here that these resources are not in as short a supply around the world as are gas and oil, and that the price of these products has decreased.
When it is stated that in 1975 the effective rate of tax in Ontario and Quebec will be around 60 per cent, added to the more than 100 per cent tax rate in western Canada, it becomes certain that investor confidence will be eroded, and the capital intensive mining industry will be even harder hit than it has been by inflation. The president of Noranda suggested that the cost of developing a new mine in February of 1975 is more than double what it was three years ago, and five times what it was ten years ago.
There is a question that I would like to put to the minister. I believe that in clause 7 there is a formula according to which royalties will be computed, based upon provincial gas company rates. I assume that this is specifically designed for the British Columbia Crown corporation. If the minister has not already done so, and to my knowledge he has not, I would like him to explain how this formula will be worked out and on what basis the fair price will be established. Will the price be based on the U.S. price at the border? 1 think this is a most important question, particularly if there is to be a proliferation of Crown corporations involved in oil and gas energy.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain that we delay the proclamation of clause 4 until after the meeting of the first ministers in April. I also want to say that I thought he made a brilliant speech today laying out the reasons why this is the position that the government should take.
It is very difficult to understand the comments which the Minister of Finance is reported to have made this evening, or why the government is taking such a rigid attitude with regard to this tax situation. It is really incredible, when all the opposition parties and nine of the provinces are very much opposed to this proposal, as well as practically all the industries involved, that the government insists on moving ahead.
Income Tax
We are not debating this evening a simple tax clause. We are coming to grips with an issue that is affecting everyone in this country. One can find no support for the government's position. It is arguing its case alone, and one finds it difficult to know what its case is, because it is not as if the federal treasury badly needed money at this time. It does not. It has been a long time since it has been in such a liquid position.
Surely the government must understand, and the minister must know what a fragile thing maintaining confederation, operating a government, and operating a country like Canada is and how much it requires co-operation and not confrontation.
Ever since the so-called oil prices development in the Middle East, we have lived through a series of confrontations in this nation-confrontation between the provinces, and confrontation between industry and the provinces, and confrontation between industry and the federal government. Surely this is no way in which to run a country, and surely the minister must realize that the hon. member this afternoon gave a very logical and rational reason why this clause should not be proclaimed until the conference of the first ministers has been held, or why indeed it should never be proclaimed at all.
The government's action has created enormous uncertainty within industry, which has had an adverse effect on the production of our ressources, and will have a great effect on future production. And again one wonders, why the government takes such a position since its policy in the last three years has been to fight inflation by increasing supply. The minister will recall that the opening lines of most of his budget speeches have been that we will fight inflation in this country by increasing supply. If there has ever been a proposal which has done more negatively to affect the supply of important resources in our nation than the proposal before us now, I do not know what it has been. Industry wants certainty. People in industry want to know that they will be able to make a fair rate of return on invested capital in order to be able to progress. It is abundantly clear that while the resources are here in Canada, the fact of the matter is that the capital, the know how, the knowledge to develop those resources and to get the supply that we need in this country, are found throughout the world. If industry cannot earn a rate of return on the development of the resources in this country, of course it will invest that capital elsewhere. It will move to other places where the return, in its view, is more appropriate.
This evening we are trying to find an effective solution for taxation of natural resources. It is a problem that affects everybody in the world. If anybody is paying any attention to what we are doing in this country, it must really amuse them to see, at a time when everyone is trying to find a way to increase the supply of oil and petroleum, that here we are in a country of 20 million people, one hundredth of the whole population of the world, locked in combat between one province and the federal government because we are not capable of working out a mutually agreeable system for developing resources.
Surely the confrontation approach that the minister has taken is no answer to the serious situation in which we find ourselves. I hope the minister will spend some time,

February 24, 1975
Income Tax
when he answers questions explaining why he has been rejecting out of hand the "Hamilton proposal," if I may call it that. The shortages which we are going to experience in the future will not only be in oil and petroleum but also in capital which must be used more effectively. With the rate of inflation that is being experienced everywhere in the world, the amount of capital that will be available for investment opportunities will be greatly decreased and the amount needed will increase.
One of the most challenging things we have to do is to find a way to use capital much more efficiently. All projections for the development which is going to take place in Canada during the course of the next quarter of a century suggest that we must make more effective use of capital. All the projects we are talking about are capital intensive; for example, the James Bay project, the Mackenzie River Pipeline project, if it goes ahead, and all the development which is going to take place in the tar sands. We will not be able to raise the capital we will need to develop these projects as inflation continues, and the government is going to have to participate in greater degree. The time will come when we must find a way to use capital much more efficiently and intelligently, not only in Canada but all over the world.
It is going to be an impossibility to undertake the sort of resource development we are talking about if it is intended to finance it in precisely the same way it was financed in the past. One can say there is going to be abundant capital available from the Middle East. That may be true. There have been large transfers of resources to the Middle East from the western industrialized countries, but surely we are not prepared to depend on financing from the Middle East in order to get our projects under way.
How can we use capital more efficiently? That seems to be almost as significant a problem for the minister as the entire conflict between the provinces. The real question is whether we can get these developments under way by turning capital around in a much more efficient and effective way. The proposal put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain strikes me as providing one answer. What is being proposed is a simple matter of the government foregoing its tax revenue and the equity holders foregoing their rate of return during a period of time in which the proceeds from the investment are used to retire debt.
Briefly the net result of applying this proposal is that the debt is wiped out early in the life of a project. No matter how the arithmetic is applied, the net result for both industry and government is that they are infinitely better off because all the front end costs are disposed of. A large debt structure unfortunately absorbs a unique proportion of the output from any particular project, and it would be much better if this revenue were used as a rate of return for the equity investment, much better used as a source of tax revenues for the government of Canada in the interests of the people of Canada, than to service debt.
It is quite true that there is nothing more difficult to bring into effect than a new idea, particularly in the area of finance. It is interesting that the proposal of my colleague has now picked up independently developed sup-

port. I do not suggest it is coming from the same source, but it was referred to this afternoon. The British government is now looking at a proposal not altogether different which is outlined in The Economist of, I think, February 14. All round the world people are searching for a way to make more effective use of capital and to achieve a more rapid turnover.
I would like to know what is wrong, when a proposal is put forward of this dimension and significance and which is so important because we are going to be so short of capital, with taking the time to examine the proposal, to put it to the provinces and to industry for consideration. Why not postpone the proclamation of Clause 4 so that the federal government, the provinces and the industry may study the proposal?
I do not know what the government really wants, but unless it really wants to see this nation moving into a situation where the private enterprise system is not able to finance any of the major resource projects we have before us, it must find some new way of financing these particular projects. Is it really the aim of the government to make sure that practically all the major proposals in the future are going to have to be financed partially or entirely by government? If they are, we are going to be moving toward a type of economy which I do not think the people really want. We must explore new methods.
I cannot over emphasize to the minister and his advisers that this issue is not important only to Canada, it is not important only to the resource industry, it is not important only to the provinces, but it is really important all over the western industrialized world. Surely if there is a country where we could make an effort to make a breakthrough on this particular problem, it should be Canada. What is the need? What is the rush? Why is it important that we have an immediate solution?
I find it quite inexcusable to dismiss out of hand, without any real care or study or presentation to a single province, a serious proposition put forward by the opposition in this parliament. It seems incredible that the government should take that attitude. I have to agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain that it is almost as if agreement has already been made that there will be a new budget which will satisfy some of the people involved in the current confrontation, but agreement certainly has not been made to help the hundreds of small Canadian companies suffering so much under this situation.
The proposal put forward by my colleague this afternoon seems emphatically logical, emphatically forthright and would get around the dilemma with which we are faced at the present time of confrontation that is bound to increase without solving any particular problem. The government may win this confrontation, but it really will win nothing in the long run because it is not dealing with the basic issues. I find it almost inexcusable that the government would not take under consideration the proposal made by my hon. friend this afternoon.
The proposal was made actually on January 30 in this House. It has not been discussed with the provinces or with other groups, and I would urge that the minister reconsider remarks he has made in the past and the remarks he made today that the government will insist on

pushing forward with this clause of the bill in face of the fact that the provinces, the opposition and most industries are opposed to it, in face of the fact that it can bring only difficulties to the fabric of confederation at the present time, in face of the fact that it is running counter to the policy of the government of trying to increase supply, in face of the fact that it will not do anything to solve the fundamental problem we will face, and are facing, of how to use capital most efficiently, and in face of the fact that a serious proposal of an alternative approach to financing has been put forward with the request that it be considered by the provinces and industry. What can the government lose by waiting and by accepting the proposition put forth today? It would seem to make good sense for the government to accept this proposition today.
Why go ahead and bring about confrontation which will not do anything for the country except great harm? When it comes time for the Minister to reply I hope that he will not dismiss the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain out of hand but will give it serious consideration.
There is no advantage in the government doing what it has planned to do, and there is a tremendous advantage to the country by it accepting this amendment, and I hope it will do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I was going to speak in this debate anyway-the fact that the government House leader came and sat beside me should not be construed as encouragement to speak.
I want to support the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I am going to take another view of it, however. The grounds advanced by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain have been harrowed and cultivated and there has been a little fertilizer from the government side so I am going to approach the question from a different direction.
Before doing so, however, I want to congratulate the government whips. There are members here on the government side from the province of Quebec, which has the traditional position of defending the constitution, and the fact that the government whips have been able to keep them quiet is a tribute to the way they operate. I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that if a number of members from Quebec had their way they would oppose the way in which the government, through this particular clause, has been trampling on the constitution. I think this is a real tragedy, Mr. Chairman, and my remarks will therefore be along those lines.
What is proposed by this clause and the related clause is looked upon by the Minister of Finance as part of the numbers game that he and his officials play with this question of the percentages of tax, and the refusal to accept the royalties of the provincial governments with regard to petroleum products or minerals as being a deductible item. The question of how to divide up the pelt of the skinned taxpayer has been a continuing battle between federal and provincial bureaucrats for many years. Ever since the Rowell-Sirois commission reported
Income Tax
and the government of Canada started to intervene-in many cases with the support of the provinces-this game has been going on. I do not suppose it will ever be concluded.
As I have said before, I think the government has gone a little too far. We may be now looking at the fall and decline of the federal system. Surely a federal system, particularly one which is to be successful and is to survive, must march in tune and in sympathy with regional and provincial aspirations-geographic, economic, racial, religious, and, of course, linguistic. For eight or ten years the present government has pursued a vigorous policy tied to the fact that linguistic differences must be maintained. It is far less accommodating, however, when it comes to other things.
Natural resources are not something over which the federal government has jurisdiction, or the provincial government has jurisdiction. The natural resources belong to the provinces, to the people of the provinces.
If one examines the confederation debate, or the debate which took place in 1930 when resources were returned to the western provinces, one will find that it was made abundantly clear at that time that those resources were to be the property-the royalties were to be the property of the people of the provinces.
In the course of that debate the late Mackenzie King was asked if royalties were going to belong to the people of the provinces, and the answer was yes. We are not dealing merely with the federal government invading a matter with respect to which the provinces have jurisdiction, Madam Chairman-this is property which the people of the provinces own. Now we find the federal government intervening and attempting to take something which does not belong to it. If someone had come to me with that story when I was practising law I would have said that the federal government had engaged in the act of theft- straight theft, and conversion of property belonging to someone else.
Now I must ask if we want the federal system to be continued in Canada because I think that is the problem we face. By a series of fortuitous circumstances, a bit of luck and some skill, over a hundred years ago we put together a document called the British North America Act. We have added to this from time to time, and it has preserved this country in pretty good shape in spite of the fact that we have been cursed with a Liberal government in 35 out of the last 40 years.
I suggest, Madam Chairman, that diversity and distinctiveness remain the basis of social progress-diversity between individuals and diversity between regions and provinces in a federal system. I know this is a doctrine which is an anathema to many of the social scientists who manage to burrow into the bureaucracy-I am going to read this and, because I think the committee should have the full benefit of it, I will repeat it. This business of diversity and individual distinction remains the basis of social progress. This is a doctrine which is an anathema to the social scientists who burrow into the internal processes of government and shortly set to work to produce the usual garbage-like litter of documents which is the centrepiece of all bureaucracy. In this way they manage to restrain the over-inquisitive natives when they get rest-

February 24, 1975
Income Tax
less, and permit the elite high priests of the government civil service to practise their trade and pursue their inclinations without hindrance.
I wish I could take out of the statutes of Canada the various amendments made to the Income Tax Act in the last three or four years. I see the hon. member for Edmonton Centre here. We all remember the occasion in the House some years ago when, with a superhuman effort, he managed to tear up that huge monument, the Income Tax Act. Even as the hon. member was doing that, the then minister of finance was given his reward. He became Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, and he has made as great, a shambles of that job as he did of the finance portfolio. This is what may happen to our present minister. I am sure the Prime Minister has something in mind for him. Even if the CTC is demolished, another agency will be established in its place, and a spot will be found in it for the Minister of Finance. I am sure the Prime Minister will be glad to see him there.


John Napier Turner: Now let's get back to the script.


Gerald William Baldwin: I say to the committee, without fear of successful contradiction, that few understand these voluminous income tax amendments. The distinguished gentleman sitting in proximity to the Minister of Finance, and I do not mean his seat mate, is one of the few in the chamber who understand this bill. I hear that many people who have tried to understand it have been on the psychiatrist's couch, and many are in institutions. I do not think anybody really understands this legislation, which is one of our difficulties.
I submit that passage of this clause will endanger the future of confederation. Even since the Rowell-Sirois Commission reported, federal governments have meddled increasingly with matters of provincial concern. This has been done through the Income Tax Act, and through general welfare and social security programs. It is somewhat strange that at the very time when provinces face tremendous financial burdens as a result of social security programs initiated by the federal government, the federal government is saying to them, "You people in the provinces will have to restrain your costs". The provinces must make expenditures at provincial levels because the federal government, which initiated these programs, has cast the burden on the provinces.
Passage of clause 4 would impose on the people of this country a pattern of rigid conformity which is not conducive to the future development of Canada and its people. I reject the principle of the unitary state. If we had wanted a unitary state, we could have provided for it 100 years ago; and I strongly resent the government's attempt to establish a unitary state by passing measures such as the one we are debating.
Speaking in defence of measures of the kind introduced in this bill and in the petroleum administration bill, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that when the rights of the provinces, conflict with the rights of the people of Canada as a whole, the rights of the provinces must yield to the rights of the

people. Let us examine that statement which sounds good and reads well.
What are the ministers saying? When they speak of the people of Canada, they mean people concentrated in central Canada. Obviously since the people of Quebec and Ontario outnumber the rest, the representatives of those people, through their preponderance of numbers, will be able to introduce programs which will be acceptable in their provinces. True, you can do that; but you cannot do that and still have a valid federal system.
If there is to be a federal system, a system which will give effect to the rights of people living in the four corners of any province, we must heed the constitution. When that constitution says that natural resources belong to the people of a province, it does not lie within the competence of this or any other federal government, by using measures of this kind, to take away from the people of a province their rights of ownership and their right to deal with resources as they see fit.
The people who lead our provinces are reasonable and decent, and when they sit down at a federal-provincial conference they will work out programs and compromises which will be for the benefit of the people of Canada as a whole. This has always been the case, but it takes time. One can liken this process to some industrial disputes. The parties sit down at the bargaining table, then get up, but come back again. I have enough confidence in the people who lead the governments of this country, the governments of the provinces, to believe that compromises can be worked out.
But I say to this committee that this consensus cannot be achieved by the federal government's securing passage of legislation of this kind and then going to the bargaining table and saying, "We have this legislation on the statute books; you do what we tell you, or else!" That is not the way to secure understanding and compromise on which the resolution of these difficulties must be based. I suggest that there are people in the west, in the east, and in central Canada who say that if this is how the federal government operates, it is time we re-negotiated the conditions of confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I will not spell out how this could be done; it could be by means of weighted votes, changes in the other place-to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might agree-or changes in this chamber, whereby the party system which has been inflicted on our parliamentary structure since confederation might be altered to provide for a greater measure of independence. This could be done in many ways. But I say to the members of this committee that demand for change will continue until it becomes a clamour which cannot be ignored.
Given these conditions, would the government not be sensible in saying, "We are prepared to defer proclamation of these objectionable and controversial clauses until we have sat down at the bargaining table and worked these matters out with the provinces, in the spirit of reasonable compromise which must be achieved if we are to survive and prosper as a country and if these difficulties are to be resolved"?
February 24, 1975

Confrontation is not good enough. I believe strongly in the adversary system, as a lawyer and member of this House. Under the adversary system we can examine an issue from all angles; the opposition can challenge the government and examine its programs from all angles. But when the adversary system is changed into a system of confrontation politics for political purposes, so that the dominant level of government can say to provincial governments, "We have the power; you do this or that, or else", I say that we have gone a long way down the road in deteriorating Confederation. If they, representing the majority of the people of Canada, decide that a certain thing should be done in the interest-in their opinion-of the nation, then apparently it does not matter a damn whether that action comes within federal jurisdiction or not; the government will take action regardless of the feelings of the provinces.
I have watched the minister as these speeches have been made. I feel the government is set in its position and I think it is tragic that its attitude cannot be changed. I can only urge the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the others who will be at that bargaining table in April to bear in mind what I have said. The hour is growing late. There is not much time in which to work out this problem.


Mr. Symes:: Madam Chairman, I want to comment on the amendment and reiterate our support for it, and then move on to a series of questions which I hope the Minister of Finance will answer.
We are dealing with the resource sections of Bill C-49, especially the clauses which prevent royalties being deducted from revenue earned by corporations. This has the effect of inhibiting provinces in raising tax revenue as should be their natural right. It forces the provinces to back down on the attempt to gain through the imposition of royalties a fair return for their resources, many of which are non-renewable. I would like to mention for, the minister's edification, a fundamental concept which was stated clearly in the report of the Royal Commission on the Transfer of Natural Resources of Manitoba in 1929. This royal commission stated, and I quote:
At confederation it was decided to make natural resources the cornerstone of provincial sources of revenue. The provinces transferred to the federal government most of their other sources of revenue including, notably, the collection of customs duties, but they retained for themselves the use and control of Crown lands, mines, minerals and royalties as sources of income.
It seems to me that the government, through the budgets of May 6 and November 18, is making a determined attack on that fundamental right of the provinces. I think the amendment which was proposed to delay proclamation of these sections of the income tax bill relating to resources until the first ministers of the provinces and the federal government have been able to sit down and talk is quite justified. It is better we should talk about this vital issue rather than the Minister of Finance should in a high-handed way impose a tax scheme which is contrary to the very fundamental precepts of confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Income Tax


Reginald Cyril Symes: The whole issue of resource taxation is a fundamental one. We have been dealing into the nondeductibility of provincial royalties, but there is one glaring omission from this income tax bill, a glaring omission on the minister's part to state clearly and precisely what the government's intentions are in terms of taxation policy toward the Syncrude project recently approved in principle by the government.
The minister has been telling us that the Syncrude deal and the oil company partners in Syncrude will be exempt from the provisions of this tax bill relating to resource taxation. But he is fudging the issue. He is not telling us precisely what is to be the tax regime governing the Syncrude project.
I have five very important questions which I should like to put to the minister; we in this party want clear and distinct answers before we dispose of this bill. We are prepared to sit here and debate it until we get clear answers from the minister.
The minister has been stating publicly that the Syncrude project will be exempt from the royalties nondeductibility provisions of the November federal budget. He is exempting this multi-million dollar Syncrude project yet he will not exempt other resource concerns in this country. If should be clear that Syncrude will be exempt from the royalties non-deductibility provisions which, of course, means it will enjoy an important tax concession as compared to other resource industries.
As my second question, I want to know if it is correct that Syncrude will also retain automatic depletion allowance of up to one-third of production profits instead of having to earn the depletion allowance and instead of being limited to a maximum of 25 per cent of production profits. That is a very important distinction, and we need a clear answer.
As my third question, will Syncrude be able to continue to claim 100 per cent write-off of development costs instead of being limited, as in this budget, to 30 per cent only for development write-offs? The Minister of Finance is saying that Syncrude will work under the 1973 tax regime; as I read it this means Syncrude will enjoy a 100 per cent write-off on development costs.
As my fourth question, under the provisions of the 1973 tax regime, as stated by the President of Imperial Oil and the President of Gulf Oil, is it correct that if Syncrude has insufficient profits to absorb all available tax write-offs, these write-offs can be passed back proportionately to the partners to be written off against their income from other sources of operation? As I read the bill, and as I understand the officials from the oil companies, they will be able to do this. This means a tremendous tax loophole exists for these companies. If Imperial Oil, for example, invests in Syncrude a sum of $300 million it can write off against its other operations taxable profits in an amount of $400 million odd dollars. It follows that the government will tax that much less of the profits of the oil companies from their other operations. They will be able to use Syncrude as a great tax deductible haven.
A further question I wish to ask: is it correct that the Syncrude consortium, because it is exempt from certain provisions of the November budget, will be assessed at a

February 24, 1975
Income Tax
lower federal tax rate of 48 per cent for 1974? Will the rate be 47 per cent in 1975 and 46 per cent in 1976, compared with the 50 per cent corporate tax rate which will be in effect for the other resource industries in this country?
Before the recent deal was made in Winnipeg that fateful Monday, the president of Imperial Oil was saying that if the government did not come through with equity financing he would be happy to revert to the tax scheme of 1973 for the oil company partners in Syncrude. Mr. Armstrong, according to the Globe and Mail for January 23, calculated that if the oil company partners in Syncrude could work under the 1973 tax regime, they would have a saving of upwards of $1 billion over a four and a half year period. If that is correct-and I have no reason to doubt the president of this oil company-it means that the Canadian people will end up financing 90 per cent of the Syncrude project.
We have been told by the government that the Canadian public, through the provincial and federal governments, is putting up 30 per cent of the costs, or $600 million. The government of Alberta has given the Syncrude partners a $200 million loan. That totals $800 million. If the tax regime of 1973 were applied to Syncrude then, in the words of the president of Imperial Oil, the Syncrude partners would get another $1 billion in tax concessions. In other words, the public would be putting up $1.8 billion, or 90 per cent of the cost of Syncrude, and would get in return only 30 per cent ownership. The companies would have 70 per cent ownership; the public, putting up 90 per cent of the financing, retains only 30 per cent ownership.
No wonder we call this the greatest sell-out in the history of Canada's resources. This is something that the minister has a duty to clarify for the benefit of the public of this country. He must let people know exactly what they have got themselves into. The public of this country has been duped; we have been sold out by this government and by the multinational corporations.
The other point the Minister of Finance and Minister of Energy do not like talking about too much is the rip-off in the Syncrude project in the form of a more than doubling of the price of oil coming out of the oil sands. This was another part of the agreement-that oil which is now being produced at $6.50 a barrel will be sold at the world price, which could range anywhere from $11 to $15 a barrel; that has been guaranteed the Syncrude partners. Yet they are going to be taxed at an even lower rate, according to the Minister of Finance, than any other resource company in this land.
Canadian consumers will not only pay outrageous prices for the privilege of using their own oil; they are, as I say, going to be financing this project through direct public funding and tax concessions which the government has given the Syncrude partners, for all of which they retain only 30 per cent of the ownership and decision making in this vital project. The Minister of Finance must come clean and tell the truth about this aspect of the Syncrude deal which he has so far failed to clarify in any speech made to date. We await with interest his defence, if he has one, of this outrageous sell-out.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to preclude the minister from standing up and explaining this outrageous sell-out, or whatever was the term used at the end of the remarks of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. Certainly I will defer to him in tonight's debate if he so chooses.
I feel somewhat intimidated in rising to my feet after the quality of the debate today. This afternoon the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain stated in very eloquent terms that there was a better way of accomplishing the goals that the minister, the government, and I think every member of the committee would like to achieve. Then the hon. member for Don Valley indicated there was really no need for the minister to proceed in the manner he chooses to proceed now. The hon. member for Peace River also pointed out that continuing to proceed in this way could be dangerous to the goals he indicated he would like to see Canada achieve, and which I think are shared by all members of the House.
Yet in face of all this reason, logic, rationale and superb debate, the minister sits Sphinx-like and unimpressed, indicating he still does not concur in the amendment to the clause proposed by my colleague for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. That is regrettable. I am sure the hon. member for Peace River is entirely accurate when he says that continuing this stubbornness in face of reasoned and rational argument and positive alternatives that are clearly superior, is dangerous to the economic future of this country, as well as to confederation because of the tensions that are created.
Indeed, Madam Chairman, I am a little confused about the real purpose of this particular proposed section of the Income Tax Act providing for non-deductibility of royalties. I listened attentively, as I always do, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance during the budget debate when he outlined the reasons for this provision. These were along the lines that the greedy provinces had taken too much money, that there would not be enough money left for the oil companies to continue their exploration and development, hence this proposal. This convoluted reasoning I find a little difficult to understand since I fail to see how the oil companies, or anybody, will be able to maintain a viable operation in the face of taxation rates that exceed 100 per cent.
Perhaps the reason was more accurately stated this afternoon by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who stated that the goal of this government was first, to achieve more revenue for the federal treasury, second, to allow some revenue to go to the provinces and third, if there was any left, to provide some revenue for the industry so it may maintain exploration and development programs to discover the oil and gas we need.
I suppose that is the nub of the problem and is an indication that security of oil supply in this country is the third priority of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who should be concerned about Canada's longterm security of supply. Evidently he thinks it far more important to have revenue for the Turner-Trudeau empire, or should I say the Trudeau-Turner empire, so it might continue to grow at the rate of 28 per cent a year.
The whole story of how this particular aspect of this bill-the provision relating to non-deductibility of royalties-was introduced into the fiscal scheme in this country
February 24, 1975

is in itself a sad one. The method used in the budget of May 6 has been described accurately by my leader as a deceitful, dishonest approach.
At the January, 1974, meeting of the first ministers a uniform price for crude oil across Canada was agreed upon and there was no indication given at that time that the government contemplated the introduction of a measure such as this, but out of the blue on May 6 we found this proposal in the budget. Faced with the description of this by my leader, as a matter of deceit and dishonesty, the Prime Minister indignantly replied in a speech in the House of Commons, to be found in Hansard at page 1726:
Let me remind the House, for the record, of the earlier approach that we adopted at the end of January this year at an open conference televised for everyone to see, an approach which precisely was one of trying to get an agreement on the sharing of production profits. We have proposed a sharing.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources brought into that conference a document entitled "A Presentation to Provincial Premiers of Suggested Distribution at Alternate Prices of Revenues on Crude Oil Production". There are a number of suggestions here based on various wellhead prices for crude oil. There is a suggested wellhead price of $6 and the suggested distribution, and a wellhead price of $7 with another suggested distribution. If we average the $6 and the $7 we arrive at $6.50, which is the currently existing price. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am sure with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, or certainly of Jack Austin, indicated a sharing and suggested that the oil producing provinces should receive 31 per cent of total revenue, including export taxes. The minister suggested that the federal government should receive, excluding the amount it uses to subsidize eastern consumers, 7.8 per cent of total revenue.
What does this budget do in the face of that suggested sharing? Prior to the budget the province of Alberta introduced a new royalty scheme which gave the province 23 per cent of the total revenue, in other words something like 8 per cent less than the federal government suggested. The province of Alberta under this scheme was to take 8 per cent less of the total petroleum dollar than the federal government suggested it should take at that January conference.
This budget, according to the Minister of Finance, would provide the federal treasury with 18 per cent of the petroleum dollar as opposed to the 8 per cent which was suggested at that time as being a reasonable figure. Faced with these facts, how could anybody describe the actions of this minister and this government in introducing these provisions as being anything but deceitful and dishonest? Certainly this is deceitful and dishonest, and totally out of keeping with the suggested distribution at that conference.
The Prime Minister had the gall to suggest that this document gave the provinces fair warning. That is an incredible suggestion. What is even more incredible is that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should raise their eyebrows and suggest that the provinces are just being greedy and selfish. They suggest they are just protecting the interests of the people of Canada against these greedy
Adjournment Debate
and selfish provinces which have not acted in good faith and will not discuss the matter with them. They say they would like to discuss this with the provinces, but the provinces cannot be counted on to sit down at a conference table and negotiate in good faith, but will go back and rob the kitty before they have a chance to get to it. The facts simply discount that suggestion. The facts will not substantiate that claim.
I should like to know whether the government has ever repudiated the sharing as suggested in this document that was tabled at the first ministers' conference. I suggest that one item on the agenda of the first ministers' conference on April 9 and 10 might be the re-discussion of this question of revenue sharing. If that is to be the case, the government will not want to be burdened with the restrictions in Clauses 4 and 7. It would serve the interests of the government, the country and everybody else, to have these restrictions set aside until after that conference.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River, has pointed out, we have reached the point where Confederation itself is being threatened by this type of activity, with commitments made and borken, and unilateral moves by the federal government into areas which clearly lie within provincial jurisdiction, without so much as a by your leave or anything that could be considered as fair and just warning, and without even so much as a rational reason. As the hon. member for Don Valley has pointed out, it is not as though the federal government is strapped for cash. The Income Tax Act currently in existence is bringing in revenue almost as fast as the government can spend it, although nothing could bring in revenue that fast.
There a few other points I should like to make, but we have reached the hour of adjournment. May I call it ten o'clock?


B. Keith Penner: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, I was just about to say that my question on the late show tonight is important enough to have both the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and his parliamentary secretary here, but I notice that the minister scurried out as quickly as he could. I am glad the parliamentary secretary is still here.

February 24, 1975
Adjournment Debate
Mt. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): We are listening to you, Jack.


Jack Marshall: I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is here.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might be able to give me a more positive answer than the one I received from the minister last week in the House when I requested the consideration of an extension of the funds allocated to the student summer employment program, and particularly the Opportunites for Youth Program. My reason for concern is that the steadily increasing unemployment rate in Canada, which will tend to worsen this summer if projected trends are correct, will cause intense hardship and discouragement to those who are affected most at that time. I refer to the age group between 14 and 24. None of us are proud of the fact that the national unemployment rate in this category is 11.8 per cent, seasonally adjusted, with the actual rate being 14.4 per cent.
Neither are we very proud of the over-all unemployment rate in the Atlantic region which, in January of this year, was 10.6 per cent, nor am I particularly proud of the over-all rate of unemployment in my province of Newfoundland, which in January was 16.1 per cent.
What concerns me in particular, Madam Speaker, is the fact that the number of persons between the ages of 14 and 24 in Newfoundland is well over 100,000, most of them in secondary schools or at university. Also, many of them must find jobs this summer to enable them to return to their studies.
As of January 1975, some 31,000 of our citizens are unemployed. This summer this number will multiply due to the many more thousands from the group I mentioned who will be seeking employment.
Certainly the same or similar figures hold true on a comparative basis right across the Atlantic region, and all across Canada in the slow growth areas.
The present OFY, funded at some $27.5 million, is expected to employ some 20,000 students. It is obvious that that amount of money and the projected number of jobs will not even scratch the surface of the problem. Even if we add the other programs, such as job exploration for school drop-outs, providing 550 jobs at $300,000; student community services providing 2,100 jobs at $5.7 million; youth hostels providing 550 jobs at $1.3 million; cadet training for 2,350 young people, and the portion of the 3,200 in the age category between 17 and 24 who will train with the militia; the 392 students who will be employed under community assistance; the 9,300 students who will be employed in the public service; and the many other programs such as drug research, street agencies, parks Canada, native summer employment, tourist surveys, improvement agriculture, many thousands of young people in this age category will be unemployed.
So we have programs which have proven successful in the main, and we have those that were wasteful and useless. What is needed is better control by experienced officials who will not only monitor the projects but create more employment. Even though it is hoped that the Canadian business community will employ thousands of

students this summer, I plead with the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, to try to impress upon his cabinet colleagues the necessity of increasing the funds for the students summer employment program, even though I was pleased to hear that the matter was under review.
This will allow more of our young people to follow the criteria laid down which will be of benefit to participants. The program will involve our youth, will allow them to use their initiative, not only to benefit the community but to relieve the pressures on them to finance their education, and provide them with the opportunities which they deserve. Most important, it will provide the many more jobs that are required for the youth of our country.


Bill Rompkey: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reply to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). He and I share the northern peninsula of Newfoundland; we share the many communities which find themselves in a similar situation, and we share a concern for the young people in that area. We both know that the people in rural Canada will probably have less opportunity to take advantage of many of the programs offered than will young people in urban Canada.
While I share that concern, I think it is important to put on record what is being done. The hon. member of course has indicated many of the programs that will be in existence this summer in addition to the OFY program. He has mentioned that the total budget of the Students Summer Employment and Activities Program is $67 million, to be divided among 12 different federal departments, including the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of the Secretary of State, and the Department of National Defence.
The Public Service Commission will receive the majority of the above amount, with the OFY program being the single largest recipient program. The total for the OFY program is $27.5 million. That is open to question, of course, but a line has to be drawn on the amount somewhere. If more money is put into those, perhaps more money has to be taken from somewhere else. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) says it is a little early to see the bite of the budget. We will have to see what effect the budgetary measures taken earlier will have on the situation.
The hon. member has mentioned the cadet reserve training programs of the Department of National Defence, the student community services of the Department of the Secretary of State and the student employment offered by the Public Service Commission. These are going to offer summer employment to 37,000 young people. Of that 37,000 jobs, 20,000 will be created by Opportunities for Youth. There is a program, a comprehensive program, a widespread program with many different options for unemployed people in Canada, and in fact, unemployed people in the Atlantic area.
I would like to put on the record that under the 1974 OFY program 12.3 per cent of the budget was allocated to the Atlantic provinces. This year the amount is 20.7 per cent, a substantial increase to the Atlantic area. I may say
February 24, 1975

that the same kind of increase was evident in the Local Initiatives Program, and if I know the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe-and I believe that I do-I am quite sure that he is going to get at least his fair share of that program.
The $27.5 million allocation to the Opportunities for Youth Program this year was set after applying statistics of past demand and-


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


TRANSPORT-INCREASING CANADA'S SHARE OF MARITIME TRAFFIC UNDER UNITED NATIONS ACCORD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, my rising tonight is made possible by Mr. Henry Brown and flows from a series of questions I placed upon the order paper directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) on October 31, 1974, and again on November 4. These questions referred to the proposed code of ethics for the liner conference agreed upon by 72 of the member nations at Geneva in April, 1974. The principle purpose of this agreement, for the edification of the hon. gentlemen here, is to seek to express to the international shipping concerns the growing lack of ease felt in the world exporting and importing communities as to the level of service rendered and the extent to which this service reflects the national interests of those nations concerned.
It would seek to guarantee for the exporting or importing country an amount such as 40 per cent of the trade each way, with some 20 per cent left open for third parties. This proposal has a long way to go before it is ratified by sufficient member states to have the force of law on the seas, but is a step and a warning to the world that all is not well in the exporting and importing countries which have up until now relied so heavily upon international and foreign shipping concerns.
Canada, probably predictably, took no position. We have no fleet. We have, according to Howard Darling, not even an identifiable ministry responsible for maritime shipping policy.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


J. Michael Forrestall: We depend for 99 per cent or more of our export and import trade on foreign shipping. Put another way, Canada relies almost exclusively on the whims of the foreign shipping cartels, and these cartels, according to Howard Darling, are increasingly becoming owned or directed by the foreign governments through whose subsidies alone much of the world's fleets survive.
Canada's foreign trade is simply too vital to be left up to the interests of foreign powers. It is, in a word, under attack from increasing bilateralism, increasing foreign national ownership and financial participation, increasing specialization and increasing nationalism.
Our defences are weak, almost pathetically so. There is no responsible ministry, no responsible minister. Is it
Adjournment Debate
External Affairs? Is it Industry, Trade and Commerce? Is it the Department of Transport? No one seems to know, and I suggest no one in government seems to care.
One per cent of our trade is carried today in Canadian bottoms. The UNCTAD proposal would give Canada an immediate option to insist on upwards of 40 per cent. What does this mean? Again no one knows.
Standing on the order paper in my name are the following questions:
No. 1130: Has the government established any interdepartmental groups to examine the impact upon Canadian shipbuilding, ship repair and merchant seamen and officers of the possible ratification by Canada...
I am referring here to this agreement.
No. 1131: How many ships would be required to accomodate the movements (a) out of Canadian ports to foreign destinations; (b) into Canadian ports from foreign destinations of 40 per cent of the present liner conference rated cargo?
No. 1132: How many merchant seamen would be required to accomodate the staffing of the number of ships required ...
This would be related to the answer to question No. 1131.
No. 1133: How many (a) general cargo (including passenger cargo); (b) container type vessels were employed in the liner conference rated international inbound or outbound seaborne shipping to serve Canadian ports within the most recent 12 month period?
All of these questions have been on the order paper of the House of Commons for almost three months with not a trace of an answer to one of them. This is a disgrace, born of neglect.
I put down a motion for the production of papers. The government said that the convention was hypothetical and therefore Canada had done no study of it. But what then is to guide the decision with respect to ratification that Canada must take for itself? There is no answer.
I want to know what Canada is going to do. I suggest that the present stonewalling is a result of callous, foolish, bungling neglect-a neglect born of ignorance and fostered by a naive trust in foreign shipping concerns. This is not good enough. We must end the somnolence and sleepwalking that this minister and this government satisfy themselves with and act now to ratify a code of ethics.
I seek information tonight. On November 6 I wrote the Canadian Transport Commission seeking the size of the Canadian fleet. I have never received a written answer to this day, although I had a phone call which said that they did not know. They did not know, Madam Speaker, the size of Canada's fleet.
I wrote to Statistics Canada for some informations as to the impact this agreement would have on our fleets. They did not know, but for what they could provide they wanted me to pay $1,000. One thousand dollars for irrelevant material! Sadder still, the Dominion Marine Association never even acknowledged my inquiries.
I want to know how much money Canada loses in foreign exchange for shipping charges to foreign fleets. It has been estimated at over $1V4 billion each year-each year we have no fleet in Canada. Canada's history under successive Liberal administrations has been one of lost opportunities. I hope tonight we can start the long trail to

February 24, 1975
Adjournment Debate
a safe, predictable, profitable and constructive national flag fleet for Canada's international trade.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, I will answer solely the question put by the hon member. It is unfortunate that time does not permit me to answer all the comments he made this evening which were not included in his notice.
Even though the United Nations convention on a code of conduct for liner conferences concluded in Geneva on April 7, 1974, and a majority of countries voted in preference to accept the code, it is by no means certain that the code will ever be ratified by the necessary countries so that it can be enforced. As the member is probably aware, the code would become effective with the accession of 24 states with at least 25 per cent of world registered cargo tonnage.
I think it would be useful to point out the main reasons why Canada abstained. The approved code requires compulsory cargo sharing which would effectively remove competition in setting rates. The code provides for the establishment of a new structure for compulsory arbitration. The Canadian position was that this arbitration should be established within the existing United Nations structure. The code, however, provides for an elaborate new structure with the prospect of elaborate new costs which would have to be provided by the trading nations.
At the present time Canada is considering certain factors which will determinate whether or not Canada accedes to the code. I think it should be pointed out that only two countries, Iran and the Philippines, have signed. Another factor that Canada must consider is the attitude of her main trading partners. Thirdly, we must look into the compatibility of this code with other Canadian international agreements. Bilateralism and the 40-40-20 formula, to which the hon. member referred, may diminish the role of cross-trading and increase costs of intercontinental transportation. And last, but not the least important, we must look very carefully at the effect on Canadian domestic interests.
I believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is on record as being inclined to support the idea of a Canadian merchant fleet. The circumstances which dictated Canada's abandoning its merchant marine fleet after the Second World War have changed greatly. The convention promotes national shipping lines, but the definition embraces even foreign ships under charter. Hence, accession to the convention would not in itself imply any commitment to develop a merchant marine.


AIR TRANSPORT-DEFECT IN PRATT AND WHITNEY JET ENGINE-COMPLIANCE OF CANADIAN AIRLINES WITH MODIFICATION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, the topic I am speaking on tonight is one that concerns directly or indirectly a great number of Canadians. I refer to the subject of safety on our domestic airlines. This is a subject I have been investigating for some time.
I received confirmation from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) that a Pratt and Whitney engine modification I had inquired about was to be performed on Canadian airline planes. I was gratified by this, but I am very concerned about some other problems in this field. In 1974 we saw a sharp rise in the number of fatalities on commercial flights abroad. In the United States more than twice the number of passengers and crew lost their lives in 1974, as compared with 1973, the number of deaths per 100 million passenger miles rising to .256 from .122.
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a number of questions, for the purpose of ensuring that this rising fatality rate does not spill over into Canada's air industry. We have been fortunate so far, but a number of recent occurrences have given rise to a growing belief that the ministry of transport is not doing its job as far as air safety is concerned. One example was the revelation last year that dangerous air cargo was often being transported while improperly packaged or labelled, and with the air and ground crews being unaware of its contents.
The Ministry of Transport has also apparently failed to monitor certain problems with some air systems on domestic airlines. I have in my possession an Air Canada maintenance document that states that flight 526 out of Quebec City on March 26, 1974, depressurized, and that 40 per cent of the oxygen masks failed to supply oxygen. The company management has subsequently claimed that all oxygen systems have operated "within design tolerances". They have admitted, however, that the Douglas Company held a meeting in October, 1974, with a number of airlines on the subject of the DC-9 pressurization and oxygen systems, which are termed much "more critical" than those of other aircraft. As a result, Air Canada carried out 22 modifications on these systems with which, two months earlier, they had claimed there was "no problem". These discrepancies in information demand investigation.
Last Monday evening, Winnipeg International Airport was closed for three hours. Yet during the period the airport was closed an L-1011 belonging to Air Canada was given clearance to land-the airport management stated that the aircraft had an engine out, making it an emergency situation. Simultaneously, Air Canada stated there was no problem with the plane. Even if other sections of the Department of Transport are in a mess, the particular facet of the operation we are considering involves a regulatory body which is responsible for thousands of people's lives every day where mistakes can be tragic and fatal.
This morning's Montreal Gazette carried a front page story headed "Profits go First Class as Airlines put Safety Second." It states:
Safety regulations are being sidestepped routinely on most commercial flights in Canada including Air Canada and CP Air as airline officials and federal authorities turn a blind eye.
The well researched article goes on to quote a number of airline employees as saying that regulations concerning the taking on board of baggage that will not fit under the seats and forbidding passengers to sit beside emergency exits are ignored as a matter of course. Pilots complain that passenger bridges are withdrawn before the pilot

February 24, 1975

gives the okay. All employees agree that the management of the airlines stress no delays and no ruffling of passengers' feathers long before they stress conforming with the law.
It is further reported in this and an accompanying article that employees have been reprimanded for delays caused by their concern for safety regulations and at least one purser, who is named in this article, has been asked to resign twice by his direct superiors because of a pet concern for safety.
When charges such as these, combined with the examples of ministry of transport negligence I have cited, appear on the front page of a respected Canadian newspaper, the government has no choice but to initiate an independent investigation into the enforcement of MOT regulations and the conduct of our domestic airlines in complying with those regulations.
I would also like to ask the Minister of Transport whether or not his department has plans to require a device known as the ground proximity warning system to be installed on all Canadian airlines. This device senses an aircraft's rate of altitude change and height above the ground, signalling when evasive action is necessary to avoid a collision. It costs between $10,000 and $15,000 per aircraft, and is to be made mandatory by the FAA in December.
The subject matter of my speech could be discussed when Bill C-226 comes before the Standing Committee on Transport. Bill C-226 is an act to provide for the constitution of a federal transport commission of inquiry which would impartially investigate traffic accidents, safety standards and regulations. The United States is setting up such a safety board. It is no longer proper for the ministry of transport to be investigating itself.
I would like to say, in conclusion, that it has been brought to my attention today that the Ministry of Transport fire trucks at Vancouver Airport do not have ladders long enough to reach the second deck-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


@Acting Speaker: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon.
Adjournment Debate
member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has chosen to deal with a number of matters other than the one involving the Pratt and Whitney aircraft engine of which he gave notice. In any case, I believe the hon. member is to be lauded for his continued concern in the area of passenger safety.
As he is aware, aircraft and aircraft components such as engines are strictly monitored, and regulations concerning safety are strictly enforced. Indeed, I can say they are religiously adhered to by Canadian airlines. All Canadian air carriers have taken the appropriate action specified by the aircraft engine manufacturer, Pratt and Whitney. The United States Federal Aviation Administration is issuing an air worthiness directive on this subject which will require inspections of the shaft. Compliance with an air worthiness directive issued by the aeronautical authorities of the country of manufacture of an aircraft is a condition of a Canadian air worthiness certificate. It is not necessary for our ministry to duplicate such directives.
In view of the fact that the hon. member made reference to the Montreal Gazette, I should like to point out that many of the points made in the newspaper article are grossly exaggerated. As a matter of fact there is some evidence that the individuals selected for interview by the reporter, David Tafler, are not aware of MOT's increased activity and the several meetings that have taken place with the air lines during the last six months. I do not believe that the marketing personnel of the air carriers have the authority alleged by Tafler.
In regard to the suggestion that certain of these members have been speaking in an irresponsible manner, I have been in touch with the head office of the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and they are equally surprised by the appearance of the article in the newspaper, and are attempting to ascertain who among their members have been speaking out in such an irresponsible manner. Probably more facts will emerge, but I am pleased that this point was brought out.
I would remind the hon. member that Air Canada has always considered safety of its passengers before any other consideration. I think the safety record of Air Canada speaks for itself; it has one of the best records in the world.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Tuesday, February 25, 1975