What this new access will be can be determined come only by consultation and negotiation. It means that willingness by the federal government to find a tax solution to urbanization must be a principal step. At present a public study is examining the finances of the three levels of government. The second national tri-level meeting was held in Edmonton in October, 1973. At that meeting the representatives of 4,500 municipalities, the mayors and the municipalities association, asked the federal government to study the mechanism whereby municipalities would be given access to extra revenue. In other words the municipalities asked the federal government to begin the process of negotiation. Whether the federal government will agree to give provinces extra tax points which can be transferred, under the constitutional prerogative of the provinces to the municipalities I do not know. However, something must be done. I was present at the meeting and was impressed with the urgency of the situation in which the municipalities find themselves as the result of federal policies. Under those policies the federal government has built up tax revenues which support the federal government; at the same time, however, the level of such taxation is eroding the possibility of other levels of government being able to meet their own legitimate needs. I am referring specifically to the needs of municipalities carrying the burden of urbanization. What does this add up to? That is why it is important to make sure that the one who is supposed to be instrumental in making decisions in this area can walk into this House, put forward his proposals, and be questioned on them. In conclusion I make an urgent plea for the resumption of tri-level meetings, even if the study of public financing is by no means complete. It is important to begin the process of streamlining the way in which the government of this country is being conducted. A number of steps have been taken and this bill is a step forward, albeit a small one, as I said previously. This streamlining process to which I referred should include, as well, the federal-provincial committees -- at last count there were 175. These committees address themselves to all sorts of problems without co-ordinating their activities with municipalities. The number of these committees could be cut. Governments may still surprise one another in their negotiations. At least, if the suggestions I have put forward are adopted, there would be a structure to co-ordinate planning, which is something we need most of all. And, while governments would not yield control of their provinces, and they would be acting within their rights under the constitution, this new, suggested structure should produce a climate of persuasion for the common good. Even this goal, limited as it is, would be, in the judgment of the joint constitutional committee, "revolutionary enough to impart a new direction to Confederation." I oppose this bill because it does not go far enough. I plead with the government to take some constructive steps forward, and to implement constitutional reforms which many people of this country want, in a way which members of this House can support. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), who has just spoken. He made thoughtful comments on the measure before us. I was sorry to hear he does not think the measure goes far enough. I hope, before this debate ends, that he will revise his position and consider this as a first step to the achievement of an objective which many support, namely, the improvement of intergovernmental relations. The hon. member suggested that a breakthrough is possible in intergovernmental relations. I think he is right. And the measure the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is suggesting will help us make that breakthrough, and here we are speaking about a breakthrough in the area of intergovernmental relations. It will come about as part of the process of consultation and not as a result of any one move made at any one time. This new position and office will facilitate that process of consultation. I hope, therefore, the hon. member will find it possible to support this measure. Later I shall deal with his suggestion about the desirability of a minister being responsible for this process. I detected in the hon. member's remarks a call for the adoption of a new philosophy of government. I hope he does not share the philosophy of government put forward a few weeks ago by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I welcome this measure because it will enable us to strengthen as well as maintain the balance of our federal system, which includes the federal government, provincial governments and through them, the municipalities. We are living in a time of turbulence among nations, and it is important to remember that Canada will need to cope with ever more complex problems in the world. These complexities will lead to relations between the federal government and the provinces being even more close and complex than they are today. Responses to the complex pressures to which this country will be subjected must be reflected in the mechanisms which we will develop to smooth out difficulties. We shall establish mechanisms which will maintain a strong federalism and a proper balance within our constitution. For that reason I believe this measure is an important, although not a great step forward on that road. I also welcome this measure because of the appointment to the new office being created of Mr. Gordon Robertson. During the past two years, when heading the Prime Minister's office, I had occasion to work closely with Mr. Robertson, who was Clerk of the Privy Council and head of the Privy Council office as well as secretary of the cabinet. One can rest assured that if any one person can launch successfully this new institution, that person is Mr. Gordon Robertson. I know well his qualities as a public servant, his wisdom in cabinet deliberations, his skill and his diplomacy and, above all, the reasonableness with which he approaches difficult problems. These qualities are particularly called for in an office that has to deal with different levels of government. Federalism will be well served, not only by the office, but by its first incumbent. If I followed him correctly, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona referred to the desirability of having a minister occupy this office. There is no other minister who can perform that function. In my view, it would be a mistake in the short term, and certainly in the long-term sense, to assign the federal-provincial function to a cabinet minister. There are also those areas in our constitution which are jointly shared. How do you find a minister who would necessarily impinge on another minister's jurisdiction in order to carry the federal-provincial concern in cabinet? In reply to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, I say that there is a minister and it can only be the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether the hon. member will accept a question. This can only be done with the consent of the hon. member. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point to ask the hon. member whether he agrees that the argument he is putting forward, namely, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is the minister responsible, diminishes the strength of this office? We know that the Prime Minister is burdened with all sorts of things. The hon. member knows this more than most of us. How does he expect the Prime Minister to give his full attention to the vital matter of intergovernmental relations when he is preoccupied with many other aspects of government? In effect, will that not then make the incumbent of the office all the more powerful? We must bear in mind that he will be a civil servant. That is the crux of my argument. I wish the hon. member would address himself to that because I am very interested in finding out what he thinks about this. I feel he is undermining his own argument. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I could never agree with him that the Prime Minister would diminish anybody's office. He enhances it. He puts himself in the position of better fulfilling his responsibility by creating this office, and by the incumbent he is proposing for it. Certainly the Prime Minister is burdened, but the federal-provincial burden that he carries will be made lighter by reason of this particular appointment. I think I strengthen my argument by insisting that the Prime Minister is preparing to fulfill his function in a more co-ordinated fashion by giving himself the required backup. The hon. member mentioned that this might be a step toward constitutional reform. I say to him, not necessarily so. It may well facilitate the process of constitutional reform, but it is not being adopted for that purpose. The purpose of the office is to make the existing constitutional balance operate more effectively, not to change the constitution in some particular way. Certainly the patriation of the constitution of Canada is a major objective. It may be facilitated through the operations of this office, but the essential purpose to be served here is to facilitate a better operation of the constitution as it now exists, not to change it. Reference was made to a new philosophy of government being required. I wish to refer to what appears to be a new philosophy proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) as recorded at page 1955 of Hansard. I trust that is not the new philosophy we are seeking, certainly not the philosophy that this office will support. In fact, it is the contrary. Referring to the need for a strong federal system, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said, and I quote: ... a strong federal system will only work if you undertake it by agreement and consultation. That is fine. I think we all agree with that. That is one of the purposes of this particular office. However, he then went on to say: If agreement does not follow consultation, then we are not a mature nation and do not deserve to continue. I think we have to repudiate that. Surely that is not the philosophy we are seeking. If there are strains in the federation, as indeed there are and always have been, they are likely to intensify because of the nature of the world in which we live. As we move into complex problems, we need an institution, or office or activity that will permit us to search more thoroughly for agreement and to develop consultation to a further point. However, I think we must repudiate his contention that failing to get agreement we deserve to fall apart and do not deserve to exist. I expect the hon. member will want to repudiate that philosophy. It is really a philosophy of despair because the constitution assigns responsibilities to different levels of government. It may be we cannot agree, but there has to be a government that speaks for all Canadians regardless of the province in which they live, a government that will assure balance and equity across Canada. That has to be the federal government. In this particular measure, it is repudiating the philosophy of giving up. I intended to speak very briefly on this particular measure. Once again I welcome it as one that strengthens federalism. I believe that, particularly in the period ahead, we will be well served by the incumbent who is being proposed. It is a particular pleasure for me to follow in debate the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), not merely because of the eminent qualities he possesses as a member of parliament but also because of the place whence he has come. This is probably as close as we shall get to a man who has, in effect, been the deputy minister of the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), an office responsible to the Prime Minister, which, like the Privy Council Office, is not answerable to this House. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, to say I have not been the deputy minister. I have to reject that assertion at once. My function was a political function, not a staff function of the kind performed by a deputy minister. I appreciate the clarification, but my point stands whatever the description of the office -- the closest we get as a parliament to people who serve in the Office of the Prime Minister or in the Office of the Privy Council is when those people leave real power and come to parliament, as the hon. member for Scarborough East has just done. I think there is a natural temptation for someone from the Province of Alberta, like myself, when addressing a question of the kind before us today to speak about the present unfortunate circumstances in federal-provincial relations between that province and the federal government. I shall not do so today, and I do not intend to take much time in this debate. But I do want to draw attention again to the very serious institutional aspects of the bill which has been brought forward and, more particularly, the very many changes which have occurred in the federal structure in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister in particular, for which there has been no legislation. I think it can be suspected that the reason we have the bill before us is to provide a post of status for Mr. Gordon Robertson, whose qualities have been attested to by members on both sides of the House. The reason this was necessary, I suspect, has very much to do with the ripples which were caused in the public service by the appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield to replace Mr. Gordon Robertson. In my opinion the Pitfield appointment was an unfortunate one in its implications for the public service generally, quite apart from causing or inspiring the legislation we have before us today. But I do not wish to dwell on this point, Mr. Speaker, although other hon. members may wish to do so. The point I wish to make, Sir, is that there have been, over the last several years, a multitude of changes in the de facto structure and nature of the Government of Canada. We have seen the growth in size and power of the Prime Minister's office. We have witnessed the growth in size and power of the Privy Council office. We have been treated recently to the simultaneous resignation of five senior public servants -- and we in this House can only guess, what was the cause of those resignations and what the consequences will be. We all recognize that in the last few years there have been major changes of the kind to which I have referred in the way the Government of Canada works. We might, on different sides of the House, disagree as to the importance or significance of any particular change, but it is clear that the Privy Council office has grown, that the Prime Minister's office has grown and that the power of the Prime Minister has grown. Yet it is highly significant that today, as we deal with the measure before us, although there have been a multitude of changes, this is the only one which has been brought before the House of Commons. All the other changes, though in effect they have altered the nature of our government, have occurred beyond our reach. We have not been asked to approve them. We have received no legislation in respect to them. We have not had the opportunity which is now given us to debate legislation. They've been slipped in through the back door. And whatever the implication of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is agreed by all members of the House that this is not a satisfactory situation for the Parliament of Canada. The other day I introduced a private member's bill to try to take the very simple, elemental step of establishing a parliamentary committee which would look into the powers and prerogatives of the Prime Minister. Such a committee might have been able to work out ways in which that office, and the offices which have grown up around the Prime Minister, could be made responsible to parliament from which, in theory, all the Prime Minister's powers are supposed to flow. Some sympathetic noises were made on the other side of the House in relation to that bill but, as happens with so many bills which propose changes for which the government is not ready, it was talked out. There is a temptation, Sir, for me to repeat at this time the arguments I made during my eloquent address on that subject during the private members' hour-- Hear, hear! I should say to hon. members to my immediate left that the temptation is even greater now because there was not a quorum present in the House of Commons when I spoke on private members' hour, as customarily there is not a quorum present during such periods. However, I will resist the temptation to repeat that argument, except to summarize by saying that not only has the size of the Office of the Prime Minister increased numerically, as we can see from the size of the staff for which the hon. member for Scarborough East was recently responsible, but that its power, too, has grown, simply because the role of government has grown. This applies also, of course, to the Privy Council Office, but bearing in mind the extent to which the media concentrate on the Prime Minister, the accretion of power has been particularly substantial in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister. I should say one more thing in this connection. The hon. member for Scarborough East, in response to a thoughtful and important speech by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), said there was no need for a special minister of inter-governmental affairs or federal-provincial relations. He said the reason such a need did not exist was that there is already a minister -- the Prime Minister. Well, sir, one of the alarming facts about the Office of the Prime Minister and about its responsibilities is that the Prime Minister, alone among ministers, does not appear before a standing committee of this House to answer questions. He is not subject to questions except during the generally unsatisfactory exchange which takes place in the course of the question period, when the possibility of intensive inquiry is seriously limited. He is not directly responsible for answering questions in a standing committee, as are other Ministers of the Crown or as a minister responsible for federal-provincial relations would be. This relates to the whole question of the growing disporportion between the power of the Prime Minister and his cabinet and the power of this chamber, one which has diminished substantially in recent times. I made the point the other day, and I repeat it now, that in a very real sense this parliament has more control over the president of the CNR or of Air Canada or of any other Crown corporation than it has over the Prime Minister. I say this because the holders of those high positions are expected to appear before standing committees and explain what they are doing, while the Prime Minister is not. This, I suggest, is a serious deficiency. I say, too, speaking personally, that I sympathize with the motive of the Prime Minister in expanding the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office so as to allow him, as the elected political head of the government, to balance the opinion of an appointed public service. I think there comes a time in the growth and size of government when that sort of thing is necessary, and we have reached that time here. So I sympathize with the motives. But I do not sympathize at all with the literal irresponsibility of those opposite, and the fact that they are beyond the reach and effective scrutiny of the members of the House. That is not acceptable. Neither, I believe, is it acceptable that we place the highly important question of federal-provincial relations within the ambit of responsibility of the Office of the Prime Minister, who does not appear before standing committees, or is not in the practice of appearing. Would the hon. member permit a question? Yes. Does the hon. member mean by his allegation of irresponsibility on the part of prime ministerial staff that members of the Prime Minister's office, for example, like members of the President's office in the United States, should be called before committees and examined? Is he suggesting that we move to the presidential system? My point here -- I apologize if I have not made it -- is that with most ministers we have two chances to ask questions. We have the inadequate opportunity here in the House of Commons during the daily question period, but the real opportunity that we have to gather information about the day to day operations of their departments is in the standing committees. Neither the Prime Minister nor the senior staff is in the habit of appearing before standing committees. If my recollection is correct -- the hon. member will know because he was in that office at the time -- last year the Prime Minister declined an invitation to appear before a standing committee. So we do not have an opportunity to question his officials in the same way that we have an opportunity to question the officials of other ministers. This opportunity is particularly important in view of the immense power they wield as co-ordinators of the officials in the privy council office and the Prime Minister's office. The hon. member for Scarborough East used the word presidential. That is his word, and is his system. It is my fear that what we are developing is, in effect, a presidential system under which the Prime Minister can operate without any real responsibility to this House, under which he cannot be questioned and his officials cannot be questioned. The reason one worries about this, and the reason it is of concern now is not simply that the Prime Minister of the day happens to belong to a party other than my own. It might be that as the universe continues to unfold we will move across to that side of the House and we will have a Prime Minister from our party. Hear, hear! So my concern is not about a particular individual or group of individuals, it is about the system that we are establishing, the institutions that we are developing, and the way we are changing the nature of government in Canada. As I said earlier, I agree with the motives of the Prime Minister in trying to establish around him as political head of the government what has been called, in the words of a former editor of Cité Libre , a countervailing force to the public service. But I make the point that there is in our system another countervailing force to the power of government, and it is this House of Commons. The danger is that a serious imbalance is growing between the power of the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the capacity to countervail that power in this House of Commons. I raise these matters now because, despite the scope of the change that we have seen in the way we are governed here, this bill is unfortunately the only specific opportunity that we in this House have to discuss this very serious change in the nature of the government of Canada. That is to say, it is unless the Prime Minister, when he brings forward the changes in the rules that he is proposing -- or perhaps I should say threatening -- also proposes a means by which we, as an institution, can control those new agencies that have grown up to create the imbalance between the power of the ministry and of this parliament. I want to speak very briefly about those fellows and the very few women in the public service who earn so much more than do members of the House of Commons, namely, our senior public servants, particularly those who are appointed at the discretion of the Prime Minister and who do not have to go through the Public Service Commission. I repeat, I can understand and approve personally of the Prime Minister's desire, as political head of the government, to try to control and direct his own government and not let the job be done by senior public servants. But I think it would be wrong for us to ignore the fact that there has been in recent days, indeed years, reason for suspicion that appointments to senior positions have been for reasons other than merit. I suggest these reasons have also to do with loyalty, not necessarily loyalty to a party but loyalty to a point of view that might be embodied in a minister. I think it would be a very real danger, particularly in a country of such diversity, and frankly such fragility, as Canada, if we developed, in effect, a personal public service at the senior level. The appointment of Mr. Pitfield clearly raises the fear, as do the consequent resignations -- I use those words deliberately -- of other senior deputy ministers in tandem, that we are developing a public service that is chosen not simply because of its competence but also because of its loyalty to the particular point of view that happens to occupy the treasury benches at the present time. That is a serious situation for our system of government to face. There is one other aspect I want to touch on today and it relates also to parliament and our powers and prerogratives. It is very clear to me, and I think to many members on this side of the House, that the growth in formal relations and conferences between the federal government and the provincial governments, indeed the various levels of government, seriously threatens to undercut the authority and the role of the House of Commons. There is the inexorable danger that these new processes that we are developing will by-pass parliament and will mean that decisions are taken at some place other than this place; and it is this place where, under our system, decisions are supposed to be taken. Reference was made earlier by my collegue from Edmonton-Strathcona to the discussions that took place at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary in the summer of 1973. At that time issues of great importance to western Canada were raised by the premiers, and commitments were given by various ministers. Many of those commitments have not been honoured, but that is not really the point. The point is that the demands made during those few days in Calgary by the premiers were demands that had been made time and time again, year after year after year, by members of the House of Commons. The difference was that in Calgary, in speaking to the premiers the ministers gave commitments; in the House of Commons, speaking to members of parliament, the representatives of those regions, the government was evasive or gave no answers at all. Contempt of parliament. That is a very serious undermining of the power and prerogatives of this place. My colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) calls it a contempt for parliament, and I think that is literally what it is. I do not think it is the purpose of ministers deliberately to tear down parliament, but I think this is what is happening. Over a period of time they have started to pay more attention and to attribute more seriousness to issues raised by premiers, in private or public conferences, than to representations made by the people who are elected to this House from those regions where these issues arise. There is a danger that, by creating this special office we are speaking of today, we are going to contribute and add to that process of bringing down the authority of parliament, and making it easy for the government to by-pass this place which is, in theory and in fact, the most effective arena and institution to control a governement given to excess. The hon. member for Scarborough East spoke about complexities when he defended the establishment of a special office for federal-provincial relations. As I recall from sitting in the gallery at that time, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), when he had responsibility as House leader, spoke of the complexities which parliament and the government must face when he proposed the changes to the rules of this House. Whenever there is an attempt to downgrade or by-pass parliament the excuse is complexity, that events are coming on too fast and are too complicated for this Chamber to handle. That bespeaks the assumption that parliament cannot deal with complexity, and that assumption, so long as it is in the saddle, is literally fatal to this system. That assumption ensures that we will continue to be undermined and that the powers of this institution will continue to go down. As I say, I think that is a danger in the institution we are establishing today, particularly since this new office will be answerable only to a prime minister who is not in any practical way answerable to this House of Commons. I want to repeat what we all know, that we are not a federal system by accident, we are a federal system because we have to be. This is a highly diverse country which requires a government that is in tune with its diversities. It is certain to all of us, I think, that this parliament is the best representation of diversity, drawing as it does individuals from every locality in the land, and paying attention, as its tradition insists, to the rights of those individuals to speak on behalf of their localities. No other agency of government does this, and it cannot be guaranteed in the public service where people in order to become promoted to levels of effective decision making have to live here so long they forget where they came from, Mr. Speaker. This cannot be done either in private conferences, involving various premiers. It cannot be done with guarantees in any other but this forum. The strength of parliament is not an academic thing at all. It is important to the very roots of this federal country. Every time we wear it down or by-pass parliament, and every time we set up agencies to deal with problems that are too complex for parliament, we literally put federalism into danger, as well as damage the parliamentary system of government to which we claim allegiance. My point in this intervention, which has gone on longer that I intended, is that there has been a range of serious changes in the way in which we have been governed in this country in the last ten years. Since I came here in 1972, and during the longer period when I was watching events from the gallery, this is the only time at which parliament itself has had the chance to pass judgment on the growth of power. The other powers have been developed without recourse to parliament, and without our having the opportunity to debate them and to express whatever concerns we had. What is remarkable about this bill is not that it has come before us, but that so many other bills which should have come before us did not. With so many of the powers of the Prime Minister and the executive being developed in this country without recourse to the House of Commons, this is a very serious situation. I hope that when this bill reaches the committee we will be able to review not only the powers that will attach to this new official, not only his relation to the Prime Minister, but also we will be able to review the range of powers of people and agencies appointed by the executive, so that we can begin to achieve the balance which was written into this system when it began -- a balance between the executive and elected representatives of this very diverse country. Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has surely presented this afternoon a most interesting bill which, I hope, will help tremendously in securing more effective relations between the central government and the provinces. I hope the right hon. Prime Minister, perhaps with the assistance of the official who will be appointed under the bill before the House this afternoon, will ponder the problems now opposing Ottawa to the provinces, realizing that here in Canada we have what I call and have always called a confederation that creates our provinces as provinces in the real meaning of the word, in a spirit that acknowledges that here in Canada we have two official languages and several provinces. It is my hope that according to the intent of the bill, the governement will in the future take into consideration the problems and relations now existing between Ottawa and the provinces, while realizing that Canada is not a federation in which provinces should be confronted as, for instance, mere municipalities. It has often been said that Canada is one of the most over-governed and over-taxed countries in the free western world. I hope the legislation presented this afternoon by the right hon. Prime Minister will help somewhat to alleviate this situation. Let us be sure of one thing; no matter what we do to change structures, whether inside or outside this House, vis-à-vis ameliorating federal-provincial relations, no structure will help unless the spirit of goodwill rests within the federal Cabinet. We can talk here until we are blue in the face; we can name a civil servant here, and fool around with structures there; we can have committees, special committees and enlarge upon the bureaucracy, and it will all serve for naught unless there is a spirit of goodwill existing in the federal Cabinet directed by the Prime Minister, all wanting to make the system work. In the last number of years we have seen various approaches to federal-provincial relations. During the years of the late Right hon. Lester B. Pearson this was called the spirit of co-operative federalism. We saw written on the statute books during that time joint federal-provincial programs that, in my view, embodied all the worst possible aspects, and today problems are coming to roost, costing taxpayers many wasted dollars. Let us consider medicare, which has already been mentioned this afternoon. I imagine that every member of parliament sitting in this House at the time realized the need to adopt the principle of medicare in this country. What happened was that, without consulting the provinces as to whether plans and personnel were ready, the federal government overnight voted billions of dollars for services that simply were not there. Without consulting the provinces the government forced them into a joint program. Today we see medical and health care services collapsing in many parts of this country. The inflationary aspect in respect of medicare and health care is now 20 per cent, and yet the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) washes his hands, saying to the provinces that they must sink or swim because it is their responsibility now. The federal government has forced the provinces into these medical programs and today tells them that they must sink or swim, that it is their responsibility despite a 20 per cent inflationary rate in respect of these services in many instances. Especially in respect of the low-income people who were intended to be served, the system is collapsing. What do we have today after the spirit of co-operative federalism of the late Prime Minister has come to an end? Under the present Prime Minister we have a predilection toward confrontation with the provinces that simply treats them as municipalities, not that municipalities are not important in Canada today. The federal government is wasting billions of Canadian tax dollars in creating an unnatural and unnecessary state of disunity. What is the situation in the province of Alberta today? It is simply a plain old fashioned power play. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) must realize that it is the federal government that is bringing exploration almost to a halt in that province. When I was in high school and first went to Alberta it was a have-not province, and then it hit oil. The Prime Minister has said that oil is a non-renewable resource and that unless there is exploration, aided and abetted by federal-provincial co-operation, we will run out of oil in eight or nine years. What does the government want? Don't get mad. Well, you say "don't get mad". What will happen when Mr. Bourassa has a natural resources problem on his hands in one or two years? The minions in the backbenches of the Liberal Party from the province of Quebec I am sure will be singing another tune. So, we have gone from co-operative federalism to a state of confrontation with the provinces, to the detriment of this country in terms of unity. There are many people who say we must stand up and be counted in a debate like this, that is, that we must say whether we take the federal position or the provincial position. I say nonsense. One cannot just say he stands for the provincial or for the federal authority in a case like this. If someone were to ask me what is the real difference between a Liberal and Conservative in terms of Canadian confederation, I would say that one of the reasons for the disunity in this country today is that the Prime Minister involves the provinces in a power play of confrontation. His view of Canada is that it is one uniform monolith where Ottawa has all the answers. Ottawa does not have all the answers. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member. The hon. member wishes to put a question but the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi refuses to accept it. We, in the Conservative Party, realize-- Mr. Speaker-- I will not answer a question at this time. The hon. member said "yes". Hear, hear! I will answer a question later. I realize that being a backbencher in that party is a very boring experience. No matter who the Prime Minister of the day is, he must define and defend the federal cause. But underlying a strong federal authority is not inconsistent with the fact that we should have a decentralized federalism which recognizes local agencies and the desirability of having a healthy and strong local government. The Prime Minister can present a thousand bills to this House to improve, at the bureaucratic level, the structures for federal-provincial relations, but unless he changes his attitude he will be wasting our time and the taxpayers' money. People often say that Sir John A. Macdonald was a strong federalist. Confederation at that time -- and I say "Confederation" not "federation" -- was a much different thing. The problems of 100 odd years ago are not the same as those of today. I say it is consistent to define and defend a strong federal cause with the proposition of a local self-agency where some people at the local level know what is best for them and how best to govern their own affairs. I say to the impersonal centralists who look at Canada as one uniform monolith that before you love the world and your country you must love your own community and your own province. That is one of the centrifugal principles of Progressive Conservative thought which differentiates us from the present government. Until you people learn that lesson you will continue to confront the provinces and add to the economic disaster and disunity. I think I have already said to the hon. member for Sherbrooke that I would answer his question. But I have not yet put it. But before I would like to express an opinion on-- Order, please. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has the floor. He has already indicated that he will be glad to entertain questions at the end of his speech. The hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted until he has completed his remarks. We believe that there are many regional differences in this country. By the way hon. members opposite clap and hit their desks and smile, it is obvious that they do not realize the way in which this government has behaved in the last six years by confronting the provinces. One day it is Alberta. Another day it will be Quebec and the next day it might be another province. The government likes to pretend that this is one uniform country in which Ottawa has all the answers and that the cabinet has all the wisdom. Rather than force this House into a debate concerning whether we should take a federal or provincial stand hon. members opposite should get on the telephone with their provincial counterparts, rather than carry on negotiations with the premier of Alberta as though we were almost a criminal from another country. He should not be insulted in this way and treated with confrontation. There is no use bringing in legislation like this, if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is to continue with his arrogant politics of confrontation. We must realize that here in Canada we have a confederation and not a federation. The autonomy and the rights of provinces must be respected and we must work together. I am very glad the Prime Minister introduced such a bill in this House. However, if the government's position does not change, it will be a waste of time. The hon. member says what he thinks, but he does not think what he says. I am not really a very old veteran of this House. However, I have been here a few years and when I hear such clapping from the other side I realize I have hit a sensitive cord. I imagine that if I had the opportunity to talk seriously and intimately with my colleagues of the province of Quebec, I should try to find out whether they really agree with the attitude of this government towards the provinces. Come on, let us be realistic. This is something else again. If this government realize that we have a Confederation in Canada, then we must respect in the true sense of the world the autonomy and rights of the provinces. I am sure that the bill the right hon. Prime Minister introduced this afternoon will be a good thing for Canada and the provinces. But as long as-- Accordingly, I declare the motion carried. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to explain the absence of the hon. member for Témiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). He has been detained in Rouyn because of the strike in Montreal. If we have not voted, it is because we did like the Chair, we relied on the decision of the House. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When voting today, I had the impression I was settling two matters at the same time and I think when you vote "yea" or "nay"-- Order, please. The hon. member must know that no comment can be permitted on the casting of any vote in the House. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60 I request you designate an order of the day for consideration of the remainder of the notices of ways and means tabled in conjunction with the budget on November 18, 1974. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I table copies, in both official languages, of government guidelines for notices of motions for the production of papers. Mr. Speaker, I now turn to something that is apparently of greater interest to hon. members. As I indicated yesterday, conversations have been taking place among the parties and among members in order to determine if a somewhat different approach to the determination of remuneration of memebrs might produce a result that would command even greater support among the membership of this House, and might help to remove any public impression that the proposed increases were excessive or out of line with prevailing standards in public and private life. As the House is aware, proposals were originally made by an ad hoc group of private members. The government included some of these proposals in the bill now before the House, and rejected others. Quite clearly, the bill commanded widespread support in this House, including that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the House leaders of the official opposition and the Social Credit Party. Equally clear, however, is the fact that the proposed, single 50 per cent increase in remuneration for members for the duration of the present parliament was both misunderstood and misrepresented. Hear, hear! Many people, either through ignorance or design, equated this proposed 50 per cent increase, the first for four years and the last for another four years, with the demands being made by groups which engage in bargaining at regular intervals and whose wages rise annually under existing contracts. It was pointed out that the average annual increase over the eight-year period was less than 6 per cent, but it has to be admitted that this argument made little headway against the popular idea that somehow members of parliament were demanding exorbitant increases in their pay. That being so, the government came to the conclusion that a different method of determining remuneration might be open to less misunderstanding and I was authorized to explore the possibilities with government supporters and with other parties. As I have said on several occasions, this measure is essentially a parliamentary rather than a government bill. The advice the government received came from private members from all sides of the House who is tendering advice made it evident that they were prepared to defend publicly and to their constituents their recommendations. The government has never considered MPs indemnities and allowances matters for partisan conflict, although of course there might be legitimate differences of view among individual members, as evidently there are. After receiving autorization to explore possibilities for a different method of determining remuneration, I was approached immediately by the Leader of the Opposition who expressed the same view, that a different approach was desirable and suggested that the level of indemnities and allowances might be determined in relation to the average increase in wages and salaries as determined by Statistics Canada since 1970, when the present rate of remuneration was instituted, and that these figures might be adjusted annually in accordance with the future trend of average wages and salaries. The government had itself considered a similar approach, and I expressed sympathy. I then had conversations with the leader of the New Democratic Party, and at a third stage I had some exploratory conversations with the House leader of the Social Credit group. Out of these exploratory conversations I made a series of proposals that I felt might command general support. In light of the comments received from the leaders of the parties after consultations with their respective caucuses, and after consultation with government supporters, I am now in a position to say that when the bill which is now under consideration by the House for second reading does receive second reading and is in the committee, the government will be prepared to support amendments to accomplish the following. First, as of the beginning of this parliament, indemnities would be $24,000 and allowances $10,600. This is 33 1/3 per cent above the present levels. The increase in the industrial composite index from the effective date of the last adjustment until July of this year is quite a bit higher than 33 1/3 per cent, but there is a disposition, I discovered, on the part of most of those consulted to recommend somewhat less than could be justified. Second, the foregoing level would be maintained from July, 1974, to December, 1975. Third, beginning in 1976, indemnities and allowances would be adjusted annually in accordance with the percentage change in the industrial composite index between the two preceding years. For example, the level in 1976 would be adjusted by the percentage change in the industrial index between 1974 and 1975. I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by thanking members on all sides, and the leaders of the opposition parties in particular, for their contribution to our common consultations on this matter which concerns members of parliament as a whole and not the government in particular. Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the changes indicated by the government House leader, I would be prepared to support the bill for second reading and reference to the committee. I just want to make one or two very brief comments. The government House leader referred to the bill introduced as being misrepresented and misunderstood. I do not want to suggest in any way that it was misrepresented. However, as I said yesterday, it seemed clear to me it was understood by the public to indicate a very substantial increase, 50 per cent immediately, and was taken by the public to be inflationary and excessive. Consequently, it seemed to me that whatever we might think our indemnities and allowances ought to be or deserve to be, we should proceed on some different basis. The suggestion that this was a 50 per cent increase over eight years and, therefore, amounted to something like 6 per cent a year was clearly not one the public was prepared to accept. The suggestion of an increase of 33 1/3 per cent seems to me to be appropriate and moderate, one that ought not to appear in any sense to be inflationary, ought not in any way to encourage those outside parliament to demand higher settlements, and ought not to be regarded as a departure from restraint on the part of members of parliament, because the one-third increase is clearly less than the increase in the general index to which the government House leader referred. That provides, and I am pleased to see it, I think some general incentive to members of the House to fight inflation. I think it is noteworthy therefore that any escalation which takes place in the future will not commence until 1976. What the escalation factor will mean in terms of an indemnity in 1976, 1977 or 1978 of course will depend upon what happens in the future and on whaat success the government and this Parliament have in fighting inflation and encouraging restraint in the country. Clearly, what is now being proposed will amount to very significantly less than what was proposed in this particular bill. In other words, a parliamentarian will receive significantly less for 1974 and 1975 than was first proposed. I think this is a very important step toward restraint and is a step in the right direction. There is one further point. With regard to the parts of the bill relating to ministers, officers of the House and myself, I want to keep that question open for the moment as to whether this should go forward on the basis of what is proposed. However, I do not object to the bill being read a second time so that this matter may be considered by the committee, but I want it understood that in speaking as I am now, I am not necessarily endorsing the proposals with regard to ministerial and other salary increases including mine. I think this is something which should be reflected upon further and considered by the committee when this matter is before the committee. Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, in contrast to the government House Leader (Mr. Sharp), that the bill presented to the House, far from being misunderstood was perfectly understood throughout the country. People from one coast to the other correctly saw that the government, with overwhelming support, with the exception of one party in this House, was presenting a package that would move the salaries of members of parliament from being in the top 1.5 per cent of the income scale in Canada, among those who pay income tax, to the top .5 per cent. It was clearly understood and clearly rejected. Following that proposal and the reaction to it in this House from the New Democratic Party, and I do not want to exaggerate the importance of that-- Oh, oh! I hear the catcalls again, Mr. Speaker. All the members of the other parties know full well that the original attempt was to get the original package through this House without opposition, without amendment, with every cent and including every period and every semi-colon. It was to be left intact and it was the New Democratic Party that stopped it. Let us not have any illusions about that. I come now to the government's marvellous compromise proposal which was so readily accepted by the Conservative Party. I want to say at the outset that, far from being a compromise which would reduce the benefit for members of parliament it would do just the reverse. I will demonstrate that by way of explanation in giving the reasons my party does not agree to these proposals. We made proposals in all seriousness that would have taken into account real increases in the cost of living experienced by members of parliament since 1971. We would have readily accepted that. We would have supported in the House and out of the House such a proposal. But, what does the compromise so-called effectively do? I refer to the introduction in 1976 of the industrial wage composite index as the basis for increases between now and 1978. If one takes that into account and applies it to the past average increase in recent years of about 10 per cent per year, what does one get? One would get the following: under the original bill the salaries of members of parliament would have been $39,000 a year in each year between 1975 and 1978, the four years, for a total of $156,000 in that four-year period. The net effect of that reduction, if one considers point two, under the escalation beginning in 1976 is that members would receive under the new proposal-- Nonsense. How can it be nonsense until you have heard the figure under this proposal. Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I do not wish to unduly restrict what he is saying to the House. However, a statement on motions is after all an indication of what may happen to the bill and is an indication of the position to be taken by parties in respect thereto. The hon. member certainly should have an opportunity to indicate the position of his group with regard to this statement, but I wonder whether the hon. member is not going beyond that and actually getting into debate on the bill. I shall summarize very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I simply point out that I have taken less time than the Government House Leader. If one totals up the income for regular members of parliament under the new proposal with the escalator clause, I think that between 1975 and 1978 inclusive, you would get a total of $160,882 which is $4,000 more than the original government proposal. It is for this reason, among others which I shall make clear in debate later this afternoon, that the New Democratic Party will have absolutely nothing to do with this proposal. Mr. Speaker, there would be a very simply way of solving the objections and it would be to allow the use of an optional formula whereby those who need a raise would accept it while those who do not need it would refuse it. Mr. Speaker, the debate going on in the House and especially in the news media deals with the salaries of politicians. A proposal has now been made and I wish to confirm on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada that we have taken part in those discussions, because we also have our own concept of the member's function and also because we were directly involved in those discussions. Generally, we endorse those proposals subject to minor changes which I will state later on. Two particular points urge me to speak now hoping that the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) will understand my message. Mr. Speaker, the members on this side of the House, especially those from Quebec -- it will reach your corner later on -- are more especially interested in the specific duties that we must carry out in our constituencies. We have a typical concept of the member's function. We are indebted for it to the hon. member for Témiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) who insists that members must give personalized service to every citizen within their constituencies and be present there every weekend. We have learned from him to provide a good service and to defend our constituents against civil servants. Our notion of the function of a House member is such that our fights in the House stem from principles and not from petty politics. Because of this notion, we are full-time members exclusively concerned with our duty to represent our constituents and fight for their rights, so that our working conditions are quite different from those of others. Mr. Speaker, while my colleagues, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and the hon. member for Témiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) must use their cars every weekend to travel within their respective constituencies, there are hon. members from eastern and western Canada who are not faced with the same sacrifices. When a member of the House represents a constituency like mine and that each time he wants to settle an unemployment insurance case he has to call Drummondville long distance, that is an expense other members do not incur. This is why I think that must inspire-- Order, please. I simply want to say to the hon. member for Lotbinière (Mr. Fortin) exactly the same thing I said to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I understood that, Mr. Speaker. This is why I think that in considering the government's proposal, it is important to keep in mind the member's role. It is important to act in such a way that the idea people have of the politician fully warrants these salary increases. What disappoints us is that we keep on maintaining the Senate and increasing the senators' allowances, although they do not have to provide any relevant vouchers. As for Social Crediters it would not be difficult for us to provide vouchers. In any event, we are going to keep on taking a very active part in these discussions. Since this question greatly interests the public and the media, I wonder if it would not be in order to suggest to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) that rather than referring the bill to a standing committee we discuss it in committee of the whole House. The general public could then assist to the proceedings, and every member could set forth his position. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to forget nor put in the same boat all members, from sea to sea, since the working conditions for a member from Vancouver, Halifax, Toronto, Quebec City or Montreal are not and will never be the same as those for a member who represents an urban or semi-urban constituency. That is why we will take an active part in these proceedings, for we, in the Social Credit Party of Canada, have never relied on any contributions from the unions to do our job. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I assure Your Honour and the House that it is a point of order and not an attempt to get into the debate. It is possible under these new provisions for that ceiling to be exceeded. The Governor General's recommendation also provides for an escalation formula to come into effect only in the thirty-first parliament. It is now proposed that there be an escalation formula that will apply during this parliament. I submit that at some point along the road if these amendments are to be proceeded with there will have to be either a new Governor General's recommendation or a revision of the one that is now before us. I ask Your Honour to take this matter under advisement. Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I say to you, sir, that these points have been considered by the government and if, as the hon. member says, it proves to be necessary to introduce a new recommendation or to alter the present one, we will certainly abide by your decision. The difficulty, of course, is that the decision can only be made when the amendment is put together and viewed, and that can only be done in the standing committee. This is a forewarning that the point will have to be dealt with when it arises. Mr. Speaker, in response to earlier questions I wish to table in English and in French a report on the crash in Syria on August 9, 1974 of a Canadian Buffalo aircraft which was operating with the U.N. emergency force in the Middle East. Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-46, to amend the National Housing Act. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-47, to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. Mr. Speaker, I was otherwise engaged and I understand that you stood the Railway Act bill. I will be prepared to move that for Mr. Marchand (Langelier). Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-48, to amend the Railway Act. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. Mr. Speaker, a number of investigations are under way at the same time. The Minister of Labour, under his responsibilities in respect of unions, had indicated to the House earlier, I believe, that he is giving consideration to some of the questions that arose in that fashion. Other matters are being investigated by both the RCMP and the provincial police. The point I was making the other day in the House was that so far as any substantial evidence was concerned it seemed to relate to matters which could produce criminal charges and there was very little that had been brought to my attention which indicated anything else. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could indicate at what point he thinks he might be in a position to recommend an inquiry be set up with respect to this SIU type of activity? Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a precise prediction as to when I will have enough evidence to warrant reaching a final decision. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council, perhaps I could put my supplementary to the Prime Minister. In answer to a question put by the hon. member for Peace River on December 5 last the President of the Privy Council, who was the Acting Prime Minister that day, undertook to supply to the House a list of incidents in recent years involving improper conduct, violence, and intimidation with respect to SIU activities. This material was to have been obtained from the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General and their predecessors in recent years. Would the Prime Minister indicate if such a list has, in fact, been prepared and when may it be tabled in the House? Mr. Speaker, I apologize on behalf of the House Leader. I was not aware of this commitment but I am sure he will be able to fulfill it if indeed he made such a commitment. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would put my question to the Prime Minister. Recent reports indicate that the government of Alberta has said it has no objections to federal participation in the Syncrude project. In view of the statements made by the minister in the House on this subject recently, I wonder if the Prime Minister could inform the House whether the government has begun to negotiate with Syncrude to see if it is wise for the federal government to take part in the project and under what circumstances, from the point of view of Syncrude, would this be acceptable? Mr. Speaker, following the new position taken by the premier of Alberta, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indeed been considering this possibility and discussing it with some of his colleagues. This afternoon he is meeting with representatives of the oil industry, and I believe after he has had those consultations he will be in a position to make recommendations to his colleagues. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the minister I wonder if the Prime Minister would consider this question and draw it to the minister's attention. He indicated in the House yesterday that he was studying some documents from the Syncrude consortium with respect to price and other financial matters. In view of this, I wonder if the Prime Minister on his behalf or after consultation with the minister would make a commitment to the House that these documents would be tabled in the House so that representatives from all parties could look at this very important information in preparation for reaching serious judgments on the matter? Mr. Speaker, I cannot make that commitment on behalf of the minister without knowing what the documents contain. They may be of such nature that he would not be able to table them without the authorization of the authors, but I will certainly convey to the minister the representations of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I am sure in whatever event, the minister will want to inform the House very thoroughly of the reasons for whatever decision he recommends to his colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Earlier this week I drew to the attention of the Minister of Justice the fact that the number of assassinations is increasing at an alarming rate in Canada. I asked the minister whether he intended to introduce legislation to restore capital punishment or take steps to thwart this crime wave which is growing ever worse. This week, five people were murdered at Saint-Joseph-du-Lac, in Quebec, which is making people indignant. May I ask the Prime Minister whether faced with such an alarming situation, he will introduce in the House legislation to fight this unprecented violence wave, to protect more adequately the life of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has had the opportunity to take a decision on this matter, and the existing legislation is the result of a thorough study and a comprehensive consideration by the members of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I would address my question to the Solicitor General. There has been another serious escape in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that question. As far as I know Riverview Hospital is not under our jurisdiction and I am not sure under what auspices the inmate was there. A supplementary question. When the minister makes his inquiry I should like to know whether he can assure the House that full co-operation will be offered -- I repeat the verb so as to distinguish between the initiative and the responsive nature of the verb -- if full co-operation will be offered to local authorities so that these men can be apprehended to protect the general public? Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour about the material which may be hidden from public gaze in the National Archives on instructions of the Department of Labour. I wonder if the minister would inform the House or inform me if the order in council he referred to yesterday which restricts public gaze on this material was actually formulated in 1973 and is not a long standing rule of law but formulated only in 1973, about the same time that this material actually was sent to the National Archives? Mr. Speaker, I can check into the precise date for the hon. member. I am advised, and it is my recollection, that the rule devised in 1973 was designed to loosen rather than restrict access to records of this kind. Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to determine whether it is possible for me to have possession of the tape in which the Minister of Labour is alleged to have had a discussion with one Roman Gralewicz. In light of reports that I am mentioned in the tape or reports by way of a racial slur, can the Minister of Labour advise me whether he also now adopts that view? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has known me for some considerable time and knows otherwise. As far as the tapes are concerned, as the hon. member is fully aware, these are in the possession of the police. They are using them for the purpose of their investigation. I do not know whether the minister understood my question. Perhaps I was not too clear. As I understand it, the reports indicate that the tapes refer to "the black bastard in Hamilton". All I am trying to find out from the minister is whether in fact the reports indicate that the person referred to is the member for Hamilton West. In order to determine whether the minister can assist in this matter, will he advise whether he has arrived at the conclusion that in fact the person to whom the reference was made is Lincoln Alexander. If it is, then I think I have ground for requesting that the tapes or records be shared. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, I think the Solicitor General has indicated that the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West was not mentioned. I cannot give opinions on matters of this kind. I cannot comment on the contents of a tape that is restricted and in the hands of the police in the course of their investigation. I think it was a very serious offence indeed for any portion of this to be leaked. Every member of this House must regard this type of thing as very serious indeed. Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is fair. I know he approaches this matter with a feeling of charity toward me. I also know he has had an opportunity to look at the records. Keeping in mind that the reports indicate the racial slur was directed against me -- we are discussing a federal election and there is only one black member in the House of Commons and therefore we cannot be talking about just any black person -- I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare laughing. I was smiling. It doesn't matter a damn. I don't like you laughing. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will not prevent me from smiling in the House about another matter. What I was smiling about had nothing to do with what the hon. member was saying. Under these circumstances, will the Minister of Labour speak to his colleague, the Solicitor General, in order to have the tapes released so that I can look at them as well as my front bench members and leader so that we can determine what went on at that particular time. Would he do that for me? Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, a question of that kind should more properly be directed to the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General. With particular reference to that matter, I can only say that in my own personal opinion, the leak of tapes gathered during the course of a police investigation and reference to comments that might have been made is highly improper and has implications-- Oh, oh! If I may continue, Mr. Speaker. The first day after Mr. Shulman referred in the legislature to the fact that federal officials were being bribed and did not name them, I ordered an investigation. It was I who ordered an investigation. You are missing my point. You had a chance to look at them. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have not checked this, but it is my understanding that last week when talking about the tapes which the Minister of Labour had, the Solicitor General said he would produce them to anyone who asked for them, even if we could not get them from other sources. Even if the Solicitor General did not mean that, and I think he did, will he now permit these tapes to be produced so that the hon. member for Hamilton West can see what is in them. Why should the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General have a right to see tapes that are denied to the hon. member for Hamilton West? That is the question. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. A week or so ago I said I would reveal transcripts of a CBC radio broadcast that was alluded to by one of the backbenchers on the other side of the House. I did not say I would reveal the transcript of a wiretap. As a matter of fact, if hon. members examine the privacy law which we passed earlier this year, they will see that it is illegal to reveal a transcript of a wiretap to anyone except the parties involved. The people tapped in this particular case were the SIU office and the Minister of Labour. In addition, it was the Minister of Labour who requested the investigation. Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General if during the course of the current investigation into the SIU he has been made aware of the criminal records of certain SIU employees and their relationship with the underworld? If so, does he intend to urge his colleague, the Minister of Labour, to have a closer look at the internal workings of this particular union? No, Mr. Speaker. I have not been made aware of any criminal records. I might point out that I am not conducting the investigation. The RCMP is doing that. I say to the Solicitor General that if he is interested, I can supply him with some of these. I will be doing so later this evening in the late show. Why don't you supply them to the police? Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Does he take the position that it is for him or other members of the government to make a judgment as to who is or is not involved in these tapes, either directly or by innuendo, so that the minister in turn can make a judgment as to who should have the right to see them? No, Mr. Speaker. We did not make that judgment. However, in this case the Minister of Labour requested an investigation of the allegations made by Mr. Shulman. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. I am not asking the minister to reveal the contents of the tape. I am simply asking with regard to his own memory of the conversation. I am asking about the minister's recollection of the conversation without referring to the transcript. Order, please. I understand that was the initial question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West. A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated the answer to the hon. member for Hamilton West. Mr. Speaker, there is certainly nothing improper about the minister referring to a conversation he had. It is done daily in the House of Commons. Without asking anything about any transcript, will the minister advise whether a comment was made which could be construed as a racial slur against the hon. member for Hamilton West? Order, please. In the opinion of the Chair, that is the third time that question has been asked. Twice the minister indicated he could not answer that question. Whether he does or not, that is the answer the minister has given twice in this regard. I do not know if there is any other point in repeating it. Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. During the hearings of the Special Committee on Egg Marketing, Mrs. Plumptre stated she had reported to the Minister of Justice direct evidence with respect to trade barriers in the egg industry. Can the minister tell the House whether he has received such a report from Mrs. Plumptre in letter form and, if so, what action has been taken to date? There was a letter received in connection with certain matters involving the movement of eggs across provincial boundaries -- I should like to refresh my memory as to its details. I asked for an examination of some of the matters raised, and that is all I can properly say at the moment. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of a reply he gave yesterday in which he said he was uncertain as to the whereabouts of the Minister of Transport and suggested he might be consulting with the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Has the Prime Minister yet had an opportunity to confirm whether or not my right hon. friend was, in fact, discussing transportation problems with the Minister of Transport? Can he advise us, should this be the case, whether a report of the proceedings and recommendations will be made to the House since this seems to be the only ray of hope when it comes to developing a successful transportation policy? I must confess that in spite of my numerous staff I have not yet been able to get precise information about where the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert is at the present time. You seemed to know. I said, perhaps he was consulting with him. But if the hon. member could tell me where the right hon. member for Prince Albert is, I might be able to answer his question. Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General in the light of an answer he gave earlier today. He was talking about the law, and he said that under the privacy legislation he could allow people to listen to tapes only when they were involved in some criminal or other investigation. The question is somewhat involved. The RCMP does not make recommendations, for example, as to who I should or should not receive in my office, nor does it recommend to me that I should, or should not, issue visas to certain people. These are not matters which are referred to the Prime Minister. What I did say in my answer in the House was that both the Department of External Affairs and the RCMP were aware of the alleged identity of the gentleman in question, and that both departments took their responsibilities. The question was not directed to me but, as I believe was stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or some other minister in his absence, the role of the police is to give advice on such matters. The role of a department, including my own, is to listen to the police. Surely, the hon. member must recognize that each department has to make its own decision on the basis of its own judgment and policies, and that after listening to the police we must all make our decisions as to what we should do then. I would direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I cannot give any undertaking today with regard to the manner in which a visa application would be dealt with. The question is hypothetical. No approach has been made, to my knowledge, with regard to a visa application in January. If an application is made it will be dealt with at that time. May I address a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? It arises from a request made by the government of British Columbia to clarify the definition of fair market value in budget ways and means motion No. 9. Since the companies exploring for natural gas have announced that they will end all activity in the province unless a response is forthcoming, would the Prime Minister advise us whether he is in a position to clarify this question as to the fair market value of natural gas in British Columbia, and, if so, whether this informaton has been communicated to the government of British Columbia? I must advise the hon. member that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance. I know the minister has been giving consideration to it in consultation with his colleagues, but I cannot say at the moment whether any advice has been sent to the province. The Premier of British Columbia says he has obtained a commitment or an assurance from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the fair market value would be determined by the amount presently being paid for natural gas. If this is the commitment, would the Prime Minister tell us whether it has been taken into consideration in resolving this issue between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy? If the premier is correct in saying that this commitment has been made, I am sure it is part of the consideration being given by the two ministers. I have nothing new to report since the last time this matter was raised. I shall certainly be glad to convey the point made by the hon. member to the management of Canadian National which is considering this whole question. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance? Would the right hon. gentleman give serious consideration to recommending a winter works program either in co-operation with the provinces or directly through the municipalities, conservation authorities, parks commissions and other agencies, bearing in mind, particularly, the unhealthy state of the automobile industry and other industries, especially in the Province of Ontario? Order, please. It seems to me that the question relates to a very broad, general policy and perhaps in those wide terms is not particularly suitable for the question period. However, the Prime Minister may want to answer. Mr. Speaker, my reaction was the same as yours. The hon. member is asking for a policy statement. I can assure him that his recommendations have been heard. I must point out that they appear to me slightly in contradiction to statements made by a member of his own party who was leading off on my bill yesterday and who said that consultations with the provinces, particularly on winter works, had been ideal in the past. The hon. member is now suggesting that perhaps we should deal directly with the municipalities, and I would think that is something that we would have to consider in order to reconcile the two suggestions. Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Will the minister undertake to review the decision of the Federal Court of Canada in the case of Rodier Jean, who was a public servant engaged in a legal strike under the statute and who, by the judgment of the court, has been denied the right to recoup any superannuation lost as a result of compensation or payments not made during the course of that strike, in order to see whether the statute has in any way been circumvented by the court? Mr. Speaker, I shall review the whole question. As I am not aware of this problem, I shall make enquiries and report later to the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of reports today that the Chinese are considering cutbacks in the purchase of grains from Canada, would the minister please advise the House whether he has been in contact with the representatives of the People's Republic of China with respect to existing and future sales contracts, and what steps is the government taking to protect our export markets? Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is in constant contact with its principal customers, such as the People's Republic of China. In this case, as well there were discussions concerning the actual timing of deliveries. The Wheat Board is always alert to the appropriate time for further negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister say whether he has some plans to do something about this serious situation? A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that exploration activity on federal lands has fallen in the last two years by almost one-third; and would he tell the House whether we can expect the federal government's regulations relating to these lands in the very near future, and what would be the outside date? I really cannot add anything to my previous answer to a question that is of the same nature, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In light of the fact that the Sydney airport is without one of its main instrument landing systems, and in view of the information from the Ministry of Transport that a replacement system is not presently available, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would investigate and advise whether a mobile ILS can be made available to MOT for use at Sydney in the interests of air traffic safety? I will make the necessary inquiries, Mr. Speaker, and consult with the Minister of Transport. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will address to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. In view of the hon. gentleman's quick action in response to the question when I first raised it in the House, would he follow the matter up with the Minister of National Defence and ascertain whether something can be done regarding this very serious situation? I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs which is supplementary to the question the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe put yesterday to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Now that we have seen the bill amending the housing legislation which was introduced earlier today, and in view of the fact that it contains no reference whatsoever to any special provisions for veterans, may I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether the promises of some special arrangements for veterans housing, once the Veterans' Land Act expires, are still under consideration? The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that he gave an affirmative answer, would he give the House more detail as to when he will introduce these measures and whether this will be done before the Christmas recess? If not, will it be done definitely before the March 31, 1975 deadline for phasing out the Veterans' Land Act, or is the minister going to extend the Veterans' Land Act? Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be time to introduce them before the recess, as suggested. I suggest it will be some time after the House resumes. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In some of the local unemployment insurance offices claimants are being told by the staff that if their insurance cheques are late they should apply for welfare while they are waiting for their cheques to arrive. Is the minister aware of this and, if so, could he tell this House whether this is government policy? I was not aware of it, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a very brief question. In light of the fact that there are 21 passenger elevators in the House of Commons and that every one of them is working under a permit that has been outdated for two or three months, I am wondering whether the elevators are really safe, or if there is something in the House that can elevate safely around here? Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is a redirection of a question I asked the Secretary of State earlier an follows upon some informal discussion with the Secretary of State. Is the minister giving any consideration to launching an aid program throughout Canada to assist school and college boards in meeting the cost of implementing the changeover to the metric system? The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker. I think those questions are properly the province of the provinces. However, I hope early in the new year to be able to introduce a resolution dealing with the whole program on metric conversion, but I do not want to anticipate the debate at that time. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of housing, but since he has unavoidably left the chamber perhaps his parliamentary secretary could give me the answer. My question concerns the $500 housing grant for families building a house for the first time. When will the criteria for this plan be made known and put into effect? Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and draw it to the attention of the minister. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his recent talks with the President of the United States, did the President of the United States at any time bring up the question of the Garrison project of North Dakota? Mr. Speaker, I do not feel empowered to speak on behalf of the President of the United States, but I might satisfy the hon. member by telling him that this matter was brought up by myself in the presence of the President, and I asked him to consider very seriously the representations that I made on behalf of Canada. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It is a current question on an old topic, concerning federal lands at Base Jericho in Vancouver. No, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my knowledge the Jericho matter was settled some months ago. I do not believe there are current negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Has he been looking into labour-management problems in Air Canada and keeping in close contact with his colleague, the Minister of Labour? If so, will he assure the House that matters are improving in this regard? In terms of the immediacy of the question, Mr. Speaker, I can merely take it as notice. I might say, however, from past experience, the kind of liaison to which the hon. member refers is a regular part of the consultations between Air Canada and the ministry of transport. I will be glad to look into the matter and get additional information for the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a point of order but I do so to draw to your attention that today once again, as on so many other occasions, hon. members in this House have been denied the right to obtain answers to very important questions in the field of transportation. We are unable to illicit any policy from this government in this field of transportation. The minister has been absent for a number of days and there has not been another minister designated to answer the day by day questions that arise in the House. I must say that when the minister is here the situation is not improved very much. We have had the first piece of legislation relating to transportation introduced in the House today. There are no less than 10 commitments in respect of transportation in the throne speech. There were several more proposals announced during the election campaign, and the bulk of the promises and commitments by the government at the Western Economic Conference have yet to be fulfilled. Surely, it is time this government took some responsibility, and I would urge the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of appointing a new full-time Minister of Transport so that we can get answers and action on this very important matter. On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be observed that questions in the area of transportation were answered this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and, if I may say so, were answered in a very effective way. It is now 25 minutes after four and the parliamentary secretary has had to leave the House, as I notice have a great number of members of the Conservative party who may not have as many duties as the parliamentary secretary. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, sometime ago there was a freeze on rail rates and a subsidy introduced to compensate rail carriers of this nation for the loss they might suffer as a result of there being no increases in the rates. I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Transport what steps the government plans to take to compensate the trucking industry for its loss of business and financial loss? Does the government have a policy to put the rail and trucking systems in a fair relative position policywise? Order, please. It seems to me the first question is related to a very general matter of policy. As I understood the last question it was, does the government have a policy to do such a thing. I think that question ought to be answered. Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that the question was too complex to be answered in this manner during the question period. However, I think it can be said in a general way that the very fact that when the freeze was introduced it had certain effects in so far as the trucking industry is concerned illustrates the distortions that come about when one seeks to compensate one mode of transportation as opposed to another. On division. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Mr. Speaker, I concluded my remarks the other day after having attempted to establish the following case. Using the criteria laid down by the government House leader at the time we last received an increase as members of parliament, it was proposed that in terms of the personal lives of members and their families, members should be able to afford what could be described as a comfortable life. It was also proposed that the facilities and services provided members of parliament should be adequate in order that they might do their jobs well. I said, on behalf of my colleagues, that we accept entirely that proposition as being the desirable criteria for setting the salary level for members of parliament and for establishing facilities and services for members. If we consider the facilities which have been provided members of parliament since 1971, both in terms of new services and a substantial improvement in those which were already in existence, the only justification one would have for arguing in favour of an increase would be that it would put them in relatively the same position they were in 1971, using the government's own criteria. For that reason, I reached the conclusion that the only salary increase that is warranted would be one based on the increase in the cost of living since 1971. I say most sincerely that I regret it was not accepted. I say, on behalf of my party, that the suggestion I put is fair and its acceptance would have removed some of the acrimony that has been created. It would also have ensured, if there is any doubt about it, that MPs would be home in time to spend Christmas with their families and able to stay there for a reasonable period of time. This brings me to the principal point in stating our opposition to this bill as it now stands and to the bill after it is amended, if it is amended, along the lines proposed by the government House leader earlier today. This bill will not only leave members of parliament in the same very high income position vis-à-vis the rest of Canadian society, but in fact it will heighten our position in terms of the distribution of income in Canada. In 1972, members of parliament were in the top 1.5 per cent of all income tax payers. Stated differently, this means that 98.5 per cent of all the working people in Canada who pay taxes and who have living expenses as well, earn less than members of parliament. Quite the converse is the case: we are among the affluent in society and I do not think we should forget that. I do not deny the expenses which many of us have and will continue to have in terms of carrying out our responsibilities. I want to stress, for the benefit of all members, that it seems to me we must keep in mind that we are among the very affluent in our country. I wish to refer to some of the current information provided by the minister in that speech. First, the minister pointed out that in 1972, in Canada, 20 per cent of our families had an income of less than $5,500. Second, in 1972 the bottom 20 per cent of our families received only 6 per cent of the total income in Canada. Third, the top 20 per cent, in contrast, received approximately 40 per cent of the income, exactly twice what would be deserved if strict proportionality were used as a criterion. Fourth, and perhaps most significant, the minister documented in that speech that during the last 20 years of so-called progressive governments at the provincial and federal levels there had been virtually no change in the income distribution among our people. In statistical terms there has been a slight change of rather insignificant proportion. Surely this situation is unacceptable to members of parliament who are concerned -- and I think members of all parties are concerned -- about the problem of inequality. The members of this party are concerned about the need for demonstrable leadership on this question. This does not mean increasing our own salaries and making ourselves proportionately much wealthier than other Canadians. I wish to refer to one more statistic which was not contained in the minister's speech. It is one which should concern all of us. That is just a year ago. We are not talking anout the depression; we are not talking about the thirties; we are talking about the seventies. A quarter of our population is living at the poverty level at a time when many members -- specifically the government, because it must accept responsibility for making this proposal -- wish members of parliament to be among the most affluent people in Canada. I repeat that surely that is unacceptable. In his speech in Toronto when he provided this information, the Minister of National Health and Welfare intimated that he believed it was wrong that this degree of inequality should exist and persist in the future. He indicated that his government would soon be taking steps to reduce these inequalities. I repeat the point I made a few moments ago, that instead of narrowing the gap and showing that we are concerned about the poorer people and about the maldistribution of funds, which means maldistribution of the capacity to enjoy life for adults and their children, instead of doing something concrete about this problem we are simply improving our own position with these proposals. To my party, at least, and everything it has stood for in the history of the socialist movement in Canada, that is unacceptable. I would also suggest that one does not have to be a member or supporter of the New Democratic Party of Canada to take this position. I not only suggest that, but I know it very well because of the telephone calls, letters and telegrams which have been received in the last few days. Thousands of Canadians who have a sense of decency and equity find it unacceptable for us to move in the way the government, in terms of its original wage proposals or the amended proposals, suggests we should move. This situaiton merely exacerbates the inequities which exist in our country. I wish to move to a matter that is related to a serious political problem, although not directly connected with this bill. Because of the inequality to which I have attempted to address myself briefly, this question does have a direct and important connection with this bill if it should pass. I refer to the government's general program to deal with inflation. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in recent weeks, and indeed in recent months, has indicated that the government is concerned about restraint. I think he has been entirely correct in expressing concern about restraint by those who are very well paid in our society. I think that a very good case can be made, for example, for a program that would impose serious restrictions on the capacity of middle and upper income people to extend their wage levels beyond the cost of living increases in the foreseeable future, while others are much lower in terms of their existing income and must deal with an inflationary economy. I say that the government, by going ahead with the 50 per cent wage increase proposal, will totally undermine the negotiation process upon which the Minister of Finance has embarked. It will make a complete and utter mockery of such an attempt and I suppose the politest kind of response that the minister will get from other groups will be the cold shoulder. I suspect that the language he will run into on many occasions will be very strong if he suggests to working people, of whatever occupation, that they are not entitled to a 50 per cent increase while members of parliament are. So in terms of the economic general policy of this government, this wage proposal, I suggest, will have disastrous consequences. For that reason it ought to be rejected by the House. The government has provided benefits, and my party entirely agrees with those benefits being provided. They do not increase the disposable income of MPs; all they do is increase our capacity to do a good job for our constituents. As such, it is tax money well spent. Second, we would favour the establishment by this parliament of a commission on which there would be representatives of farm organizations, trade unions, professional groups and businessmen -- a cross-section of the community. The purpose of this commission would be to report back in the second session of this parliament with recommendations on the subject of MPs salaries and benefits, at which time parliament could consider their proposals. I conclude by saying that the NDP has the serious intention, not of breaking rules but of working within the rules, of doing everything we can to stop passage of the legislation that the government has introduced. Just before I sit down I want to propose an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin): That Bill C-44 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the subject of salaries and allowances of members of parliament and cabinet ministers should be referred by the government to an independent commission. Before you put the amendment, Mr. Speaker-- I am looking at the amendment. Perhaps I could listen to hon. members' points of view. I have not made up my mind regarding the acceptability of the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just heard the amendment read, and it strikes a familiar chord. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in somewhat similar terms, and another by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), both of which were ruled out of order by the then Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder if it would be in order for Your Honour to reserve judgment on this issue and possibly allow argument, if it is deemed necessary, to be made later as to whether or not the amendment is in order. We have only ten minutes to five o'clock, in any event, and I would urge that this course be adopted by the House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It would be helpful if we could have a debate at eight o'clock on the procedural aspects. Perhaps I could make my own suggestion to hon. members. I would not like to deprive the hon. member for Lotbinière (Mr. Fortin) of a chance to make his comments. Perhaps a ruling could be made after he has completed his remarks, so that all four party leaders will have been heard. Agreed. Mr. Speaker, I would make a few short remarks, which I hope are essential to this debate. As I said earlier in this House and elsewhere, Bill C-44 met with a number of objections among the Canadian people, and therefore a number of misunderstandings. Mr. Speaker, the thing to be stressed in this debate is the following question: How do the Canadian people view their elected representatives? At what level do they see them? How do they perceive their members of Parliament? People will even pay $5, $10, $20, $25, $30 or even $50 for an opportunity to go and see them play, but nobody protests against that fact, not even the New Democrats. Curiously, socialism does not apply in this case; but when it comes to politicians, those who represent the people, who make laws in the highest court of the country, the House of Commons, then enters socialism. For puritan and electoral reasons, it is going to be argued that the politicians' work is going to be diminished. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker,-- Buying prestige! Buying prestige! That's it. If socialists had their say, there would no longer be rich and poor, but only have-nots without anybody to represent them, as in Cuba. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this kind of argument unfortunately has been overly used and exaggerated by newsmen who, in this case, did not show a conscientious approach to their work by reporting them in the papers; as a result, public opinion will keep maintaining an attitude of reserve to their duly elected representatives. The citizen of the Lotbinière riding, Mr. Speaker, as anyone of any constituency, has got those news from the radio, the television or the papers, he has been witness to those exaggerations and falsehoods. For the time being, let us disregard the fact that I am for or against the principle of this bill or the amount of increases, and, for a moment, let us forget the figures concerned. Let us consider only the principle. I live on Notre Dame Street, in Victoriaville, and I read in the papers: "Members of Parliament up their salaries to $44,400". In addition, on the screen of his television set, he can see a broadcast of the CBC, with a man by a Christmas tree saying: Members of Parliament will play their own Santa Claus and vote themselves increases of up to $47,440 and ministerial allowances will be raised to $65,000. First, Mr. Speaker, the poor man in the street who shoulders inflation cannot see any solution in sight. Second, he feels that Members of Parliament go a little too far, because he does not know that he is being misled by newsmen who do nothing except speak ill of Canadian men in public life. I think it is high time for us to speak out. Mr. Speaker, I will say that today the House of Commons has passed judgment on the hon. member for Témiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). Today, people passed judgment, and quite a sweeping judgment, on a member of Parliament, but he will appear before the committee without any problem. We do not fear that. Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to pass judgment. How many reporters are now in the gallery? I can see only one. Mr. Speaker, they will be saying tomorrow that the members of Parliament did not have a quorum, that they are present only during the question period, for the exciting bit, and they will be backed up by members of the New Democratic Party and of the Progressive Conservative Party and sometimes by ministers. After that, they beat it and hon. members do their work, and columnists contribute through their often fraudulent writings to misrepresent the functions of members of Parliament to citizens who are deprived of adequate information. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have always insisted in this House that members should have the necessary money to inform their constituents. And one of the wonderful means they could be given, and I once again urge the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to take it into account, would be this: instead of giving each member 16 copies of Hansard every day which is ridiculous when you represent 85,000 constituents, members should be granted not monies, and let that be so reported, "not money" but more copies of Hansard so that they could, with the help of reports written in black and white, inform their fellow citizens and show them the other side of the picture which newspapermen do not describe. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock? If the hon. member calls it five o'clock, it will have to be with the unanimous consent of the House. Is the House agreed? Agreed. In the same spirit, if this mood-- We all agree to call it five o'clock. Shall we call it five o'clock? It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan)-- National defence-- Effect of financial restraints on operational roles of forces; the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-- Finance-- Request for reconsideration of tax on pleasure boats; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-- Labour conditions-- Possible amendments to legislation to protect union members from discriminatory treatment by unions. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely Private Bills, Notices of Motions (Papers) and Public Bills. I would say, for the record, that we on this side support the bill and hope it will advance the service of all air carriers. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. There being no notices of motions (papers), the House will now proceed to the consideration of public bills. I am told there is an understanding that we shall proceed with Bill C-225, standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and, at the request of the government, stand the bills preceding it. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is most appropriate that it should come up today when we witnessed "the last tango" in the House of Commons with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) doing his level best to secure information from the government benches, which he was unable to obtain. Therefore, I repeat; it is most appropriate that this measure should be discussed at this time. I think there may be some disposition, before the debate proceeds to the end of the allotted hour, for the subject matter to be considered by committee. I welcome that. I know there are imperfections in my bill, and I know that if the government at some time sponsors a bill dealing with the right of the public, parliament and the press to secure information it will be drafted in a form which is acceptable to the House and to the government. However, I shall refer briefly to the bill without going into the individual clauses. I am attempting, by this bill, to reverse the practice that exists in Canada, namely, that no information is given by the government unless it sees fit to do so. The government always has the option of falling back on the time-honoured cliché that it is not in the public interest to advise members of this House, the press or the public with regard to certain material. It is true that in the previous parliament the then government House leader introduced a set of guidelines dealing with the production of documents in this House. If and when the government sees fit to refer my bill to committee, I hope that the subject matter of these guidelines will also be referred. This is a practice which generally obtains in Sweden. The Prime Minister of Sweden was here not long ago and I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with him at a reception. I was amazed to hear him say that a few days before leaving Sweden, three newsmen had been in his office and had secured some files from his filing cabinet and were in the process of examining them. Obviously, there must be exceptions to a rule which says that the public, parliament and the press are entitled to full divulgence of any information that is requested. The Prime Minister of Sweden told me that is the case in his country. In Sweden, and I believe one or two other countries, they adopted the principle that you start on the basis that anything in the possession of the government belongs to the public. There are certain exceptions, and these are spelled out. That is what I am attempting to do in my bill: the exceptions are in clause 4. Without breaching the rules, I might touch on them. Private and confidential information that is given, such as in the case of income tax documents, ought not to be divulged. I think that where information on record is so trivial that the cost to provide or to make the record available is not in the public interest, that information should not be divulged. The United States has an act which is virtually useless and is very rarely used. My bill provides that it not be left to the government to make the final decision whether a subject matter or information comes within areas which are excepted. In my opinion, that would give too much leverage to the government. Should there be a legitimate contest between the public and a government department or agency as to whether the subject matter is, or is not, within the excepted classes, this must be decided by the courts. Hear, hear! --which would reserve unto itself the right to say that a certain part of the information which it has available should not be disclosed because it comes within the exceptions. We should devise a method whereby a judge or a court has the final say, with proper precautions such as holding sittings in camera, so that if matters of national security are involved they are not disclosed. This subject has been debated in the House on many occasions. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is involved in a very serious and earnest discussion. I do not want to disturb him at this moment. However, I notice that in 1973-- Are you afraid that we are swapping jobs? The hon. member says he is swapping jobs with the government House leader. He wants the extra money. I would like to take a very, very close look to see who would be the loser in that proposition. On March 15, 1973, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre engaged in a debate on a motion following the refusal of the government to supply certain information. It was a very interesting debate. From what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said then, he must be on my side in this case. I conclude with two points. If this bill is referred to committee, I hope the committee will be ingenious enough to look at the Official Secrets Act. The act provides for penalties in respect of certain offences alleged which, in my opinion, are so far out of date that this House must look at them. In the United Kingdom, the government set up a commission headed by the distinguished jurist, Lord Franks, to look at this issue and come up with some very substantial amendments. There was a case during the Nigerian civil war when some prominent people in the United Kingdom went to Nigeria and divulged some information. When they returned to the United Kingdom, they were charged under the Official Secrets Act. This precipitated quite a hubbub in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I suggest that if a committee is to be charged with examining the subject matter, it should be ingenious enough to look at the Official Secrets Act as well. I suggest that we should take our time, that we call on the Canadian Bar Association, the Consumers' Association, the Civil Liberties Association and all groups which have an interest in ensuring that some means be found to compel governments to make it impossible for information to be kept secret, as was done today, bearing in mind that there can be no good government in the absence of an informed public and that increasingly, as governments become more complex and more gigantic in scope, new ways are found of concealing facts which should be available to the public. After all, it is the public which pays for this information through its tax money, and subject to very limited exceptions this information should not be refused to the public. Looking south across the border, in the last two or three years we have seen a government and an executive in Washington in a distressing situation. There can, surely, be no more graphic illustration of the necessity for making information openly available, which means there ought to be no hesitation about adopting a measure intended to compel government to disclose to parliament, to the press and to the public, facts in its possession. Madam Speaker, I am taking part in this debate because I put forward a similar bill some time ago, but not in the too distant past. I, too, registered my concern at that time about the lack of disclosure, and I am pleased to note that my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has now taken it upon himself to register the same concern -- one which I am sure all hon. members share -- that is to say, concern about the power which big government and big business exercise and which, for one reason or another, they believe justifies their withholding from the public information to which it is entitled. This is where I think my bill bogged down, as was pointed out to me most emphatically by hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Peace River has dealt in some detail with what are called privileged records in clause 4 -- some seven or eight areas in which the right of the public would not be applicable. This is a commendable step because, as it stands now, the government in its wisdom believes that no document, no information can be supplied to the public on request on the basis of its own determination. This is what I find wrong in terms of participatory democracy. This is what we have been hearing about particularly over the last six or seven years -- participation of the public. It is in this area that you can remove or decrease the alienation, the frustration which arises as a result of callousness, disregard, or perhaps a feeling there is too much power. As long as people believe they are part of the process they will be much more satisfied than they are right now. It is a terrible situation when we, as members of parliament, representing our constituencies, find it impossible to get information which has been gathered at the expense of the taxpayer for his benefit. This is what is wrong. This is what we are trying to correct. As I understand it, there is some sympathy on the other side with respect to this problem. Perhaps if we sat on the other side we might have taken the same attitude as government members have taken; in particular, those who sit on the treasury benches. It is even likely we would. But now is the time to reverse this process, as was so ably pointed out by my friend from Peace River -- to reverse the procedure whereby at the present time not a thing is available to the public. What we are saying is that everything should be available to the public, subject to certain reservations by way of privileged records; and if that doesn't come about, then the public has recourse to the courts. It is interesting to note that the clauses which provide that the matter may go to the courts spell it out. These clauses set out the procedure by which the public right to information is enforced when the government refuses to provide it or unreasonably delays in providing it. The right is protected and enforced by the courts. The application may be made to a judge of the Superior Court of any province or to a judge of the Federal Court of Canada. There is no appeal from the judge's decision and there are no costs or fees. The court orders are produced and formally served upon the Clerk of the Privy Council and the government must appoint a minister or other public official to answer for the government before the court. The government has a right to refuse, but its refusal is subject to appeal to the courts. Madam Speaker, as I think of what we are attempting to do here, I can find no fault with it. I hope that government members will see some merit in the proposition that the public is entitled to information which has been gathered on their behalf by the government, subject to one thing, and that is classified matters which should not be revealed. This is one way we can remove the frustration. This is one way we can remove that impression of distance which so many people encounter in terms of themselves and government whether municipal, provincial or federal. We happen to be talking in the federal parliament at this particular time, but I feel so distant at times and so hopelessly frustrated when I read the questions on the order paper, particularly in terms of production of documents where invariably the answer is no, it is privileged information or it is against the public interest. Surely, there are many matters on the order paper in respect of which such a conclusion should not be reached. But right now we have no right of appeal to determine whether disclosure is against the public interest or whether the government is just playing footsie. Is the government deliberately hiding things? This, of course, is an extremely important question. We should have the right to look behind the government because, surely, whatever they are doing it is for the benefit of the public. If it is for their own benefit, then I think we should have the right to determine whether in fact they are honest. I am not implying that the government is dishonest. I may call them inept, sloppy or a lot of things, but I would not dare to say they are dishonest. But there is always the chance that something is going on over there that we should know about. Chance? Well, I want to be as kind as possible. It is always possible there is something going on over there that they do not want us to know about. You know that is wrong. I hear my hon. friend from London, a marvellous chap. I have seen that done, too. But he is a man who has a feeling for the people and he knows that on this subject right. I know he would say "hurrah" for the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Hamilton West because they are bringing to the notice of the Canadian people the fact that we are concerned about a practice that is bad and with which we can all find some fault. We should make the attempt now to give full disclosure of all facts. If you have anything to hide, then that is something else. But surely, Madam Speaker, if you have nothing to hide, then all the more reason to vote for the bill holus-bolus. Give us a chance. Let's not go into that. No. Let me just say that He who looks after all has been smiling upon us today. I do not know whether He is smiling on certain people to my left, but let us hope that He will understand what they have done. In all seriousness, Madam Speaker, I hope hon. members will take the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River and send this matter to committee to look into the principle of it, so we can at least say that we have tried. Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in support of the bill that has been introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I suppose there will be some who will find fault with certain of the details of the bill, and I have yet to see a bill that could not be improved here and there. But the principle put forward in this bill is one that I strongly believe the House should support. We seem to have a government that acts on the maxim of "Don't produce it unless you have to". We think that should be reversed and that the rule should be that all government documents should be produced unless it can be proved that such production is really against the public interest. There are jurisdictions where this more open rule is practised. Therefore, I am glad to know that under this new regime that is now in effect in private members' hour, this bill, at least, is not going to be talked out. It used to be that we did not quite know what was going to happen to a bill when it was called for private members' hour, but hon. members have now learned that there have to be 20 members here during private members' hour. We have a good example today. Yes, I notice there are more than 20 Liberals here today. There is only one from your party. I also understand that at the end of the debate, along with the reference of the subject matter of this bill to a standing committee, the guidelines for the production of papers which were tabled today by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will also be referred to committee. The committee in question is the joint committee on statutory regulations. What has bothered me about these guidelines that the government has promulgated is that they have been produced unilaterally; there was no input from us into these guidelines at all. They have been produced, modified and brought down on two or three ocassions. But having been produced, they are then referred to as though they were authoritative in themselves. As I say, these are just guidelines that the government has produced for its own purposes, so that if there are documents the government does not want to produce, the guidelines provide for that non-production. Therefore, it is a good idea to have these guidelines examined by a committee, the joint committee on statutory regulations, which of course has a membership component from this House along with a few members of the other place. We are glad that these two matters, namely, the subject matter of Bill C-225 and the actual guidelines for the production of papers which were tabled today, are to be referred to that committee. The committee has shown itself to be an efficient and able one in its treatment thus far of its terms of reference having to do with regulations and other instruments of that kind. We believe that given this job, the committee will do a good job of it as well. We hope it will bring back a report to the House of Commons that will put us a few steps further along the road to the kind of democratic government that is open and that really practises the principle that the people have the right to know. Madam Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on this bill before allowing the parliamentary secretary to make his remarks. May I say at the outset that I am extremely pleased that my colleague was able to present the bill and that the government apparently seems amenable to allowing it to go to committee. I think the principle involved here is broader than simply that of the ability of the public to know the basis on which decisions are made. The principle is perhaps far more important than that. I think the question that has concerned me more than anything else in the two years that I have been in Ottawa is the deteriorating perception of government and politics in general that the public has. When I first ran for office in 1972, a great many of the people I met -- as was the case with so many other members of the House -- stressed the fact that they did not trust any politicians, that they thought they were all basically dishonest, secretive and out to further their own ends. I think that inevitably in a democratic society there is going to be a certain measure of skepticism with which politics is viewed. What has concerned me is that over the course of the last few years, in large part perhaps as a result of experiences of immorality among public officials, which has reached almost epidemic proportions in the United States, the opinion of the public as to the quality of people involved in public life and as to the worth of the democratic process in trying to find solutions to our problems has fallen enormously. What I hope can be done today is that we take this first step as one part of a mosaic of programs which will help to open up democratic government and ensure that the public realizes the government is not something outside and mysterious, but belongs to the people. I hope it will help to make us more responsive to the needs of the people. During the time I have been involved in government, both here and at the provincial level, I have detected what I think is a very normal human trait among people in government, to view information as being the right of the bureaucracy or of the governors, and that it is up to them to exercise their discretion as to whether the public will have the privilege of getting access to particular information. Information that belongs to the public. This information, as my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) states, belongs to the public. It forms the basis for decisions made on public matters, and forms the basis for decisions which affect tax money. It forms the basis for decisions which affect the public on a day to day basis. I think we should put ourselves on record today as categorically rejecting the concept that this information is the property of the government. That is not so, it is the property of the people. What particularly concerns me about this is that there is a natural inclination on the part of government to try to suppress information which can be embarrassing to the government. In a democracy I simply do not believe we can allow this to continue to happen. I am not suggesting that this is a phenomenon which is peculiar to this particular government, it is unfortunately a phenomenon which is widespread throughout democratic society, and one which we should simply not tolerate. From my vantage point as a backbench member of the opposition it strikes me that the opposition, or the individual member of parliament, is at a severe disadvantage in trying to make a point of view heard against the point of view of the government. I have asked myself since coming here, as have so many of my colleagues, what our role is as members of parliament, what it is that we are supposed to be doing as members of the opposition, and how best can we fulfil our responsibility? I think a large part of our responsibility is to point out the cost, in social and financial terms, of decisions and actions the government takes or proposes to take. I think it is important that we point out the disadvantages of virtually any program to government suggests, so that at least before a decision is made there is a fair hearing on all sides of the issue, and so that the public can take a look at the actions of the government, and is able to look at both the pros and cons of any piece of legislation or action by the government. I am not saying it is our responsibility, and I stress this very strongly, to oppose for the sake of opposing. I think it is our responsibility to ensure that all information relevant to any particular matter under consideration is brought out, and that the public is made aware of it. When you consider to enormous weaponry of the government to propagandize its particular point of view in order to get that point of view across, you realize that the government has literally battalions of flakmen hired at public expense to advance its point of view, to explain, rationalize and to justify decisions that have been made by the government. When you realize that, you will realize that the average member of parliament, on both the government and opposition sides, is incapable of doing the job he would like to do, of keeping the government in check by properly scrutinizing the government's activities. The average member simply does not have the resources to investigate the government's activities in the way he would like to investigate them. We then realize that in fact our democratic system relies to a very great extent upon chance to keep the government in check and to prevent abuses of executive power. In a very real sense in most western democracies in the last few years, it is the press, and not parliament, that has played the role of keeping the government in check and making sure that abuses of government power have not existed. Because of the enormous disparity of resources between members of the government and members of the opposition, or between the executive and parliament as a whole, the press has in a sense formed the real opposition in Canada and in many other democracies as well. This is simply because it has, the resources which we do not have to do the work. I do not think we can allow our democracies to continue on this basis. Today we have been discussing a piece of legislation which deals with the ability of a member of parliament to serve his constituents. I want to stress that what is far more important, than that piece of legislation we will be discussing again later, is the need for the individual member of parliament and the public to have freedom of access to information, and the resources necessary to scrutinize properly what the government is doing. I have had, at the request of my leader, the responsibility for viewing the other side of this coin, or the other aspect of this particular problem. He has asked me to look at the question of computers and privacy. To me the question of freedom of information and protecting the ability of the public to know what is going on, and the question of having its own privacy protected, are parts of the same problem. We have to ensure, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has tried to do, that information which is made available is not made available in such a way as to damage unnecessarily the personal private life of the individual. For example, it is obvious that information dealing with people's tax returns should not be made a part of the freedom of information act. Obviously that is privileged and private information. I refer to the right of parliament and of the public to the freedom of information, and also to the right of the individual to privacy when information about him is held by the federal government. It seems to me that one formula which might be acceptable, and which I would hope we can consider before rushing off to accept other proposals, would be a piece of legislation that would integrate both aspects of the problem, dealing with privacy and freedom of information. We could appoint an officer of the House, responsible not to the bureaucracy or the executive, but to parliament itself. He would have the responsibility, as does the Auditor General, of reporting to parliament on the progress made by the executive and the bureaucracy in protecting personal privacy, and also of ensuring that matters of public information dealing with public policy are made public. My concern is that at the present time we are far too reliant upon the goodwill of parliament and the judgment of individuals to see that power is not abused. I think the public has the right to insist that there be statutory responsibilities given to someone, preferably an officer of parliament, who can make sure that the rights of the public are properly protected. I know that the parliamentary secretary wants to speak, and I would certainly be the last one who wants to talk this bill out. I think it is an important bill to be sent to the committee, so I will sit down now in order to give the parliamentary secretary the opportunity to make his point. Madam Speaker, I think we have today an indication of the impact that a private member's public bill can have on government policy. I can assure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that when the government guidelines were drawn up very active consideration was given to the points raised in both their bills. Because these bills are not always discussed in the House this does not mean that no one pays any attention to them. The truth is that when a private member puts down a bill, attention is paid to it by the government and by the bureaucracy. The guidelines which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) tabled today were developed as a result of cabinet decisions taken before the election of 1972. They dealt not only with the provision for reference to members of parliament but also the treatment of private members' bills, notices of motions and notices of motions for the production of papers. It was a total package the government approved. It was my luck to come on the scene after the decisions were made and to be asked to put them into effect as best I could. I am sure hon. members who have served in government, or in any other large bureaucracy, know that it is not too difficult to make decisions at the top but it is very difficult to refer them down through the layers of bureaucracy. If hon. members will look back at the way in which answers to written questions, motions and so on, were handled prior to 1972 it will be seen that there has been a distinct improvement all the way through in that regard. I think this is due in large part to the initiative of people who have brought down hills and arguments in respect of how to deal with some of the points raised in respect of the kind of information which should be released. This is a very difficult question because there are a large number of what might be termed borderline cases. Let me give hon. members an indication of some of the problems we have had in dealing with this issue. The information provided the government in such a case always is propriatry and confidential. In cases up until now when members have put down written questions asking for the details of the information provided to the government on the basis of confidentiality, the government has refused to disclose this material. Should we say, on the other hand, that any company which asks for a grant should be prepared to let us make its total financial economic picture available to a member who might request it in the future? I am of the opinion that on balance the answer is no. This is a difficult subject. Let us take the case of confidential information which is given to a minister by his deputy minister. If I should go to a deputy minister tomorrow and say that I should like some information on such and such a situation, the deputy minister might ask me a question. He would ask me whether I intended to document it and print it. Then he would say if it is to be documented and printed that he would provide the information, but he would add that if I truly wished to have his frank and unbiased opinion I would have to regard it in confidence. Where do we draw the line? Hon. members show a great deal of interest in what is contained in cabinet documents. Generally speaking ministers on second reading give what is in the cabinet documents, but hon. members often enough wish to have this material provided. What about information relating to security, both national and police? What about information affecting national defence? What about information that relates to the Queen, the Royal Family, prerogatives, and the relationship of the Canadian government to foreign governments? Hon. members probably would be interested in all these matters. It is difficult to know what the balance should be in respect of releasing information. The problem will not become any easier. The balance will have to be struck again and again, because there is a growing tendency for government to become involved more and more in the economic and social affairs of our country. Consequently there is confidential information on a whole range of subjects. Should this confidentiality be breached, or should governments base decisions on information which comes to them on the basis that the information will be made public? If a government were to do that, very often it would receive information that would be publishable but that would be worthless in terms of making a decision. I do not know where the balance should be, Madam Speaker. The important point I wish to make is that the guidelines and the bill presented by the hon. member for Peace River are complementary; they both deal with the same subject. As hon. members are aware, last year as soon as the guidelines were prepared and introduced in the House of Commons they were referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Because this committee and been newly established it did not have time to pay any attention to this particular reference. It is our hope that the statutory instruments committee, having now made three or four reports to the House of Commons, will be able to schedule its work in such a way as to deal with this vitally important subject. I should now like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen): That Bill C-225 be withdrawn, the order discharged from the order paper and that the subject matter of Bill C-225 be referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Then if that motion should carry I would also move-seconded by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen): That the Guidelines for Motions for the Production of Papers tabled this day by the President of the Privy Council be referred to the said committee; and that a message be sent to the other place to inform Their Honours of this decision. Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill C-225 be withdrawn, the order discharged from the order paper and that the subject matter of Bill C-225 be referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments? Agreed. Motion agreed to. Order discharged and bill withdrawn. Is there unanimous consent that we adopt the second motion? Agreed. Motion agreed to. Madam Speaker, in view of the time perhaps I could call it six o'clock. I now leave the Chair until eight o'clock tonight. At 5.50 p.m. the House took recess. Mr. Speaker, I see that as the member for Lotbinière, I am in the House at 8 o'clock, but that there are no reporters in the gallery at this time. Mr. Speaker, there is one. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before it was called 5 o'clock, the bill before us provides for increases in salaries and allowances and each time such an increase is proposed for the members, it gives rise to more or less scathing discussions among the people throughout the country. Agreed. No. Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to Canada. This matter concerns the opening of the 1975 Canada Winter Games in Lethbridge, Alberta. In view of the fact that the opening of these games can be considered a prelude to the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, where we hope Canadian athletic excellence will dominate, and because we are all looking forward to the possibility of the 1979 Winter Games to be held in the great city of Thompson, Manitoba, I would request the consent of the House to the following resolution with a view to further encouraging Canadian participation in competitive sports and fitness programs. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone): Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important and urgent matter. In view of the high rate of unemployment, stemming from the progressive deterioration of all sectors of activity in our economy, which is creating a situation that could become disastrous over the short term, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is starting to recognize that the growing recession in the United States influences us directly, and that most of the ministers, through their attitude and almost explicit statements, indicate that the situation has gone beyond their control, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise): That the House of Commons be allowed to discuss now, without making politics out of it, the economic future of the nation, the emergency measures to be taken, the attitude we should adopt as responsible leaders, and the duty we have to inform all Canadians of the facts, to obtain their enlightened co-operation in order to get out of the impasse. Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent? Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Property and equipment located in western Newfoundland, known as the Pinetree radar site, and valued at several millions of dollars was left to the Canadian government by the U.S.A. when they vacated that site in 1971. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter): That this House do order that the government immediately investigate the matter and that officials of the Department of National Defence, the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Public Works, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Telesat Canada be directed to make a decision over disposal of the property and that security services be established immediately to prevent further deterioration, and further that the province of Newfoundland be consulted as to the future use of the site. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very important issue which urgently requires immediate governmental action. In view of the constantly decreasing number of housing starts, the thousands of layoffs in the textile and automotive industries, as well as the fearsome increase in unemployment generally over the past few months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise): That the House examine immediately this serious problem and authorize additional credits for the Local Initiative Program, thereby permitting the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to accept more local initiative projects for the purpose of creating new jobs, and that the expiry date for submitting projects be postponed from January 31, 1975, to March 31, 1975. There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put. (Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) 1. What was (a) the name and location (b) the application number (c) the estimated number of jobs to be created (d) the total cost of the projects (e) the maximum possible grant allowances of all projects applied for in British Columbia under the special ARDA Programme of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion from February 8, 1971, to date? 2. Can the Minister advise how much of a grant and how much in the value of loans have been made under the special ARDA Programme and/or any other Department Programme to Tofino Fisheries Ltd.? 3. Who are the executives of this firm and are any Indians or non-status Indians? 4. What is the number of employees in this operation and how many of these employees are Indians or non-status Indians? 5. Can Indians, non-status or status, apply directly for grants under the special ARDA Programme? All applications remain confidential until an offer of assistance is accepted by the applicant. --- --- When an offer has been accepted, the application number is discarded and a project number is assigned. (c) Estimated number of jobs expected to be created as a result of accepted offers is 310. (d) The total cost of assisted projects is: $5,813,100. (e) Maximum possible DREE grant allowance (resulting from offers accepted up to September 30, 1974) is: $1,799,600. 2. The grant offer made under Special ARDA (there are no loans available under the Program) was $553,100 of which $300,019.40 has been paid. 3. 4. The Special ARDA Agreement with Tofino Fisheries Ltd. specifies 57 jobs or 684 man-months of employment are to be created. Two-thirds or more of the man-months of employment are to be available to people of Indian ancestry. 5. 1. With reference to Part 1 of Question No. 325 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament, which states in part that "each of the three major car firms in Canada (Tilden, Avis and Hertz) were approached regarding participation in this programme", did one of these companies deny being given an opportunity to bid on the exclusive two-year bid signed between Air Canada and Avis and, if so (a) which one (b) is the government prepared to withdraw this statement or produce documents showing the other two companies were given bids? 2. With reference to Part 3 of the same question (a) did Avis Canada advise the Cabinet that it would be selling its interest to Avis USA and, if so, did Cabinet give approval of this sale (b) did the then President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable C. M. Drury, have his Avis shares, which were being held in trust, recorded with the Prime Minister's Office? 1. (a) Air Canada advises that it stands by the answer given to Part I of Question 325 asked by Mr. Reynolds in the Second Session of the 29th Parliament that "each of the three major car firms in Canada were approached regarding participation in this programme". The Foreign Investment Review Act, which was not in force when the sale in question was completed, puts prospective purchasers, and not sellers, under an obligation to inform the responsible authorities of their intentions. In this instance, the sale represented the exercise by the purchaser of the terms of a contract that had existed between the two companies since October 1960. By this action the minister effectively removed himself from control or influence over the management or disposition of these shares. Enquiry of the trustee about trustee actions with respect to these shares and about the reasons for his actions would, in effect, be asking the trustee to violate the terms of the trust agreement. (Supplementary) Does the government subsidize the Canadian Council for Classical Research and, if so (a) for how many years (b) through what department (c) what amounts were granted in 1971, 1972 and 1973 (d) did the government make a grant as capital for the Council at the time it was created or at some later stage of its development? In connection with newspaper advertisements and householder flyers published in October, 1974 by the Public Service, in the search for keypunch operators for the Taxation Data Centre (a) for what reason is it necessary to search for inexperienced people (b) how many people who were employed part-time or temporarily at the Taxation Data Centre during the 1973 income tax season returned to work at the Centre during the 1974 season (January to June) (c) is it expected at the time of hiring that the part-time and/or temporary workers hired for the Centre will be receiving unemployment insurance benefits after they are laid off upon completion of the peak season (d) what other employers in Ottawa hire keypunch operators and how many (e) how many jobs for keypunch operators were offered by Ottawa employers on the last business day of each month from August, 1973 to September, 1974 inclusive? To the knowledge of the government, who pays for the media advertising advising US draft dodgers or deserters how they may proceed to return to USA? The government has no knowledge of who pays for the media advertising referred to. 1. Since the inception of the government's interim aid programme for shipbuilding, has a grant been made to the Sorel shipyard and, if so, what was the amount each year? 2. Under the programme (a) how many ships were built (b) in what country is each registered (c) what was the amount of the grant for each ship (d) was the grant paid to the builder, the owner or the fitter? Within the CBC accelerated development plan (a) what localities (provinces, areas, or towns) were identified as priorities for the year 1975 (b) what services (radio or television) will be affected (c) what radius will be covered? The CBC Accelerated Coverage Plan is a large, complex and highly integrated five-year undertaking involving 300 locations and 600 engineering projects. Names of the locations and the nature of the service to be provided are made public, step by step, as applications for licences are made to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. With reference to the answer to Question No. 280, did the Minister of State for Urban Affairs hope to convene a Quebec Living Places Seminar in March, 1974 and what are the reasons it has not been possible to finalize arrangements for such a seminar? I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that it was considered appropriate to postpone the Québec Living Places Seminar until after the master agreements with the province had been negotiated. These were signed in the fall of 1974. A seminar may be held in Québec in early spring, and an invitation to attend will then be extended to all interested parties. 1. To the date this question is answered, what would be the current all-items Consumer Price Index if calculated from 1913 expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100? 2. (a) What was the all-item Consumer Price Index, if calculated from 1913, expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100, as of December 1953, 1956, 1959, 1962, 1965, 1968, 1971 and 1974 (b) what was the percentage change from the preceding three year period for each such period? 3. What would be the current Consumer Price Index for each of (a) food (b) shelter (c) services excluding shelter (d) goods other than food if calculated from 1913, expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100? 4. (a) What was the Consumer Price Index for each (i) food (ii) shelter (iii) services excluding shelter (iv) goods other than food if calculated from 1913, expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100, as of December 1953, 1956, 1959, 1962, 1965, 1968, 1971 and 1974 (b) what was the percentage change from the preceding three year period for each such period? Has the government any plans to construct a new building in the Village of Port Stanley, Ontario and, if so (a) on what date is construction expected to begin (b) what is the expected date of completion? A feasibility study is currently in progress relative to the provision of improved postal accommodation at Port Stanley. The implementation time frame cannot be identified at present and will be subject to establishment of Canada Post Office priorities and availability of funds. Will the Minister of the Environment release the noise level study done for the Canadian National Railway on waterfront activity in the City and District of North Vancouver and, if the study is not available, for what reason? This study was developed without consultation with the Department of the Environment and was funded by the Canadian National Railway. This department does not have a copy of the report. 1. Under the Basic Training for Skill Development Programme (a) what amount of money was expended in Newfoundland during the fiscal year 1973-74 (b) what amount of money has been allotted for the fiscal year 1974-75? 2. With regard to Newfoundland (a) how many persons participated in the Basic Training for Skill Development Programme in the fiscal year 1973-74 (b) how many persons are expected to participate in the fiscal year 1974-75? 1. With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,045 to the effect that the Regional Headquarters of Parks Canada will be moved from Cornwall, Ontario to another more central location (a) on what date will this move take place (b) what would be the new location (c) is or has any place in the constituency of Leeds been considered for such location and (i) if so, what are all details (ii) if not, for what reason? 2. Will the government give immediate consideration to relocating in the constituency of Leeds the Regional Headquarters of Parks Canada now in Cornwall, Ontario? This would not provide us with the access to the provincial and other federal agencies mentioned in (b). 2. No. Is the government committed to the establishment of a national park in the grasslands area in Southwestern Saskatchewan and, if so, on what date will such a park be established? The government is negotiating with the government of Saskatchewan to establish a national park in southwestern Saskatchewan. If the negotiations are successful, it is expected that a memorandum of intention will be signed in the near future. Until negotiations are completed, it is not possible to give a date for the establishment. 1. Since the creation of the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), how many complaints have been received of arrests arising from misinformation in CPIC'S data bank? 2. 1. None. 2. No complaint received. What was the total operating budget for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for each year 1967 to 1974 and 1975 estimated? Total Operating Budget for Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. 1. How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 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? 1. (a) January 1, 1974 -- 3,076; (b) January 1, 1975 -- 3,167. 1. How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Labour 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? 1. (a) 743; (b) 787. 1. How many full-time employees were under salary in the Ministry of State for Science and Technology 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? 1. (a) 159; (b) 157. What are the names of all the lawyers used in British Columbia by the government or any Crown corporation? Return tabled. 1. Since 1967, how much money has been granted to the State of Israel on an annual basis, in the form of (a) grants (b) loans (c) in the latter case, what was the interest rate? 2. Since 1967, how much money has been granted to each of the Arab countries on an annual basis in the form of (a) grants (b) loans (c) in the latter case, what was the interest rate? Return tabled. 1. What is the total number of employees of the government located in the four Atlantic Provinces? 2. Of that total number, what is the breakdown by province? 3. Of the total number, by province, how many are permanent employees and how many are conditional from any point of view? 4. Of the total number who are permanent, how many are in receipt of pay that is national and how many have their pay determined on a regional basis? Return tabled. Has any department, agency and Crown corporation given contracts to the Arthur D. Little Company and, if so (a) which ones (b) for how much (c) for what reason? Return tabled. 1. (a) In each of the years that the Local Initiative Programme has been operating, how many applications were approved by the government granting funds for projects dealing with paper re-cycling (b) what were the names of each of the projects, for what community were they and how much money was granted in each case by the government? 2. (a) In each year that the Opportunity for Youth Programme has been operating, how many projects have been approved involving paper re-cycling (b) what were the names of each of the projects, for what community were they and how much money was granted in each case by the government? Return tabled. 1. Have any persons who ran as candidates of the Liberal Party in the General Election of July 8, 1974 received any appointments, employment or honours of any kind from the government and, if so, what are the names of such persons, when and what have they received and what is the exact renumeration involved in dollars in each case? 2. What is the same information as above for any persons who served as Liberal Members of Parliament in the 29th Parliament of Canada and who did not contest the election of July 8, 1974? Return tabled. 1. Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation entered into agreement with any of the provinces under the provisions of Part III of the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme passed on June 12, 1973 and, if so (a) which are the provinces (b) what are the dates of each of the agreements? 2. (a) How many neighbourhoods have been approved by provinces or municipalities for contributions or loans under Part III of the Programme (b) in what provinces and municipalities (c) what are the amounts of the loans, actual and approved, under the Part? 3. How much has been advanced by the Corporation in respect to section 27(2) of the Act to amend the National Housing Act passed on June 12, 1973 for the selecting of neighbourhoods, formulating and collecting plans to be implemented, acquiring or clearing land and for the cost of improving municipal and public utility services under the Part? 4. What contributions, if any, have been made to municipalities by the Corporation for site clearance in accordance with section 27(4) of the Act? 5. (a) What advances have been made to the Corporation out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the financing of neighbourhood improvement programmes (b) in what provinces (c) on what dates and in what amounts? 6. (a) What advances has the Corporation made under the powers conferred by Part IV of the Act to amend the National Housing Act, passed on June 12, 1973, for the rehabilitation and conversion of existing residential buildings (b) in what provinces and municipalities have such loans been made (c) what are the amounts that the Minister has advanced to the Corporation for the financing of housing rehabilitation programmes from the passage of the Act up to the present time? Return tabled. 1. What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services? 2. What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract? 3. What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted? Return tabled. 1. Did the Canadian International Development Agency enter into a contract or an agreement with the Government of Zaire or one of its departments which involves the services of a Quebec company named Sintec and, if so, on what date? 2. (a) What was the amount of the contract (b) what services are to be performed (c) what part of the contract amount is a grant and/or a loan by CIDA? 3. Is work on this contract being carried out at this date and, if not, for what reason? 4. (a) Were tenders called for this contract and (i) if so, how many firms other than Sintec submitted tenders and did Sintec submit the lowest tender (ii) if not, for what reason (b) if Sintec was chosen from a short list of firms without tender, what other firms were on the list (c) what were the reasons for the choice of this particular firm? 5. What are the names of the chief officers of Sintec and what are their academic and professional qualifications? 6. (a) What other contracts has Sintec carried out for CIDA and for what amounts (b) has this firm had previous experience with (i) an overseas contract (ii) any other contract? 7. Was René Mantha, co-ordinator of business agents for Local 791 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, employed by Sintec on a CIDA contract in Zaire and, if so, in what capacity and at what salary and allowances? Question No. 1,029-- 1. What are the names and job titles of employees of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion who have been transferred (a) from Ottawa to regional offices (b) from regional offices to Ottawa since July, 1973? 2. What were the names, job titles and locations of all senior executives in the Department as of November, 1974? Question No. 1,103-- 1. From March, 1974 to date, on a monthly basis, what was the record of on-time arrival and departure performance in percentage figures of the Lockheed L-1011, operated by Air Canada? 2. (a) What was (i) the longest delay (ii) the average delay in each month (b) what was the major reason for delays? 3. What is the system average of Air Canada's fleet on a monthly basis? 4. Is the record of the L-1011 on-time performance satisfactory to Air Canada? 5. (a) For what reason was the L-1011 considered over the Douglas DC-10 when Air Canada embarked upon the purchase of this type of wide-bodied aircraft (b) does the L-1011 cost of operation compare satisfactorily with that of the DC-10 (c) are documented statistics available and, if so, what are they? Return tabled. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to question No. 534 the answer to which is four months overdue. It is with regard to Local Initiatives Program projects known as Research Anti-Poverty and Project Aldergrove. The question asks for details of these projects, details of RCMP investigation of the projects and the names of all those connected with the projects. In addition, I refer to questions 1,183 and 1,184 on the same projects, including inquiries concerning a certain Michael Carson in connection with them who was apprently the same Mr. Carson mentioned in the Norris report a few years ago in regard to the SIU-CSU situation. I should like to ask why these questions are not being answered, in addition to many other questions on LIP which have not been answered by the government. Surely some assurance should be given as to when they will be forthcoming. I will take account of that inquiry and look into the matter. Mr. Speaker, I rise with regard to the question that has been on the order paper since November 4 concerning property that was left by the American government to the Canadian government valued at many millions of dollars and containing sophisticated radar equipment which is of value to the Canadian government. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 17 and 22. Motion No. 17-- That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between United Aircraft and the government over the past year and copies of contracts relating to federal grants accorded to United Aircraft over the past five years. Mr. Speaker, the documents requested in this motion refer to correspondence which is commercially confidential, the release of which would be detrimental to Canadian production and exports. The contracts requested in the motion have already been tabled in the House by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion. Transferred for debate. Motion No. 22-- That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all studies, notes, position papers, memoranda, etc., relating to the requirements of Canadian shipping with respect to the proposed formula for import/export conference rated seaborne trade, in terms of the number of ships required, the capacity of Canadian shipyards, the number of Canadian merchant seamen required, the level of ancillary shipyards, the number of Canadian merchant seamen required, the level of ancillary shipyard related industries of design capability, etc., in the event Canada ratifies the proposed Code of Conduct for liner conferences. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact I commented on this motion previously, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion. Because of the importance of this matter to the Canadian shipping industry, I would like to have it transferred for debate. Transferred for debate. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister said in the House on Monday that the $3 billion cash deficit for the fiscal year 1975-76 forecast in his November budget will be substantially exceeded because of reduced revenues from the export sector and higher payments for unemployment insurance. Does this mean that the minister has given up on his employment projection of 250,000 additional jobs for 1975, given at the time of his November 18 budget, or what is the explanation for the substantially higher payments for unemployment insurance in the next fiscal year? Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, because of the depth of the recession in the United States and its effect on our exports, the projections both for corporate revenue and for unemployment have been shaded down, so that the cash deficit of $3 billion predicted in the budget of November 18 will now be exceeded. I cannot give the hon. gentleman a fixed figure for unemployment. As I have told him and other members of the House, there are too many variables at play in the figure. In terms of new employment, at an appropriate time we will se the effect of the stabilization measures in the United States and how the stimulus injected into our country is taking effect. I will then be able to give a more precise answer to the House. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has used a good many words, but he has not denied that he said on Monday there will be a substantial increase in the pay-out for unemployment insurance in the next fiscal year. This means that the employment situation which he now foresees is substantially worse than he foresaw when he presented his budget. I am asking the minister whether he is just accepting this worsening of the employment situation and is taking the position that there is nothing he can do at the present time to offset this projected drop in business and increase in unemployment. Mr. Speaker, that is not the conclusion I would draw from what I said. Until we see how the American policy evolves and the effect of final measures enacted by the United States Congress, I think it would be premature to add stimulus at this stage. A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister attempting to deny that he said on Monday there would be substantially increased pay-outs for unemployment insurance in the next fiscal year? I heard him and it is on the record -- although he was using a different argument from the one he used today. I ask the minister, now that he is on record as admitting that the employment situation will be significantly worse than the situation he foresaw at the time of the budget, and as he has admitted that economic conditions now are substantially different from those he foresaw at the time of the budget, is the budget now inappropriate to that extent, or will the Canadian people be simply stuck with it because the minister does not know what to do with it? Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Since the government's effort in 1970 to arrive at a voluntary program of restraint was hopelessly one-sided to the extent that it asked workers to restrain their wage demands while leaving the government free to literally take away thousands of jobs as a result of government policy, does the consensus the government is seeking involve a government commitment on employment growth and, if so, when will the details of that commitment be made public? Mr. Speaker, when the consensus evolves I will declare it to the House. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Finance advise the House whether labour representatives were given the government's own predictions as to the extent of expected unemployment during the coming year -- it would be incredible if the government had no projections -- and, if so, what were the government's projections several weeks ago when the meetings took place? Also, what is the government's present projection, in view of the figures released yesterday? I think the people are entitled to an answer from the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I have never predicted unemployment figures, interest rates or exchange rates in this House, for reasons I have given on several occasions. As to the conversations with leaders of the labour movement-- Of course, they were privileged. --they were privileged and confidential, on both sides. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Considering that the problems of the automotive industry are now worldwide, and considering that other national governments, specifically those of France, Great Britain and the United States, have recognized how important the automotive sector is to their national economies, does the Government of Canada plan to bring forward in the near future a national program which will deal with the severe problems our national automotive industry faces? Mr. Speaker, we will be meeting Mr. Dennis McDerment and the council of the United Automobile Workers in the next few days and discussing these various matters. We are concerned not only about the health of the automobile industry but also about the health of other industries in this country which are affected by current world conditions. Of course, the answer relating to any particular sector, again, depends on how effective any remedy might be. Mr. Speaker, that is the standard answer. Has the minister considered, as one of the vast range of policy alternatives which I am sure passes through the government's collective mind, the possibility of reducing -- indeed, of removing -- the federal sales tax on automobiles for one year on condition that the automobile companies -- this would be a means of forcing them to do so -- bring down the price of cars they sell to Canadians to the level at which they are sold to Americans? Thus there would be a substantial shift in sales and a greater percentage of cars would be sold on the Canadian side of the border as opposed to the American side. Mr. Speaker, that is one alternative, except that the revenue implications are quite severe. If that type of stimulus were to be introduced, it might be introduced into the economy generally. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's department given serious consideration to evolving a plan with the automotive sector to transfer certain productive facilities away from automobiles to the production of interurban transit vehicles, because they undoubtedly represent the way of the future? Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of such a proposal, but I am ready to inquire and see if somebody has discussed that in the department. Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the difficulties independent agricultural workers have in collecting unemployment insurance allowances because of the discrimination arising from Regulation 172-4(b) that arbitrarily sets gains at 50 per cent of the farm gross income, something that is entirely wrong and unfair, could the minister tell the House whether he will recommend that the regulation be amended to make it more consistent with facts and to do justice to this category of workers? Mr. Speaker, as always, I will certainly give the hon. member's representation due thought. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the bewildering increase in the unemployment rate, particularly in Quebec, and the delays in the distribution of payments through the famous electronic machine of the Montreal centralized system, is the minister in a position to order that an immediate inquiry be held on the efficiency of that office, the number of payments being made and of those that cannot be made, while families waiting for the allowances are practically starving? Can the minister promise the House he will have those delays investigaged and assure the House that he will take the necessary measures so that unemployment insurance claimants get the money to which they are entitled since they contributed out of their labour? Mr. Speaker, we analyse the effectiveness and speed of our services, which are very important for the reasons the hon. member has described, right across the country. According to my most recent information, the speed of the service is better than it was one year ago, which was better than it was two years ago. Notwithstanding that, if there is a local situation which is troublesome I will be glad to investigate it. I ask the hon. member to give me as much detail as possible, and I will make arrangements to that he and I can meet the chairman of the commission and look into the problem. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Here is the particular point of the request I make on behalf of my colleagues and of my fellow citizens: Once everything is in order, the commission reserves itself a ten-day delay before ordering to start the payments. Is the minister aware of this situation? Does the minister have a solution to suggest to the people who will have to wait ten days, although their case is in order, to have their three meals a day at home, and does the minister intend to take steps to have the commission pay what is to be paid when the case is in order? Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that I will look into the situation the hon. member describes. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the obvious revision of the financial resources available to the government and to the economy, would the minister advise the House as to the revised figure he has arrived at respecting the cash requirements of the government for unemployment insurance payments in the fiscal year 1975, in light of the government's obligations? Will this figure possibly exceed the $2 billion reached in 1972? Mr. Speaker, I will look into that. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question on a serious subject. Before I do, without raising an official point of order I should like to draw attention to the fact that the reports filed under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and the privacy act were distributed to the press at about 2.30 or 3 p.m. yesterday afternoon, and no copies were delivered to members of parliament. Shame. While I know the image of the Solicitor General needs all the help it can get, I do not believe this insult to parliament should go unmentioned. I hope that future reports filed with respect to legislation will at least be delivered to members of parliament at the same time as they are sent to the august body up above. My question obviously refers to the reports filed on wiretapping. In light of the assessment made in the final paragraph of one of the reports and the difficulty set out in that report in relation to the implementation of the act, is the minister prepared to refer both these reports forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in order that any necessary changes for the proper administration of justice can be studied and implemented? As soon as I found that this had been done, I advised those who I thought were the principal critics in the opposition parties. Oh, oh! I meant the hon. member for Broadview, not Broadbent. With respect to the question asked by the hon. member, I would say that several other reports are due on the same subject. Wiretaps relating to the Criminal Code are usually carried out under provincial attorneys general who report on the administration of this legislation across the country. I do not think we should refer this subject to a committee or take any action until we have received all the reports on wiretapping; they must be tabled at the end of the calendar year. In the meantime I will take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration. I can understand, now, why the Solicitor General has so many escapees across the country: he does not know who are the spokesmen on the subject on this side of the House. I have a two-part supplementary to direct to the hon. gentleman. Can he assure the House that none of the 339 warrants authorized under the Official Secrets Act and 249 authorized under the privacy act was issued with respect to any of the members of this House? With respect to the 339 warrants issued under the Official Secrets Act, can the minister tell us how many are related to foreign subversive activity and how many are related to internal subversive activity? With respect to authorizations under the Official Secrets Act -- those are the ones I must authorize, in accordance with the law -- none was issued with respect to any of the members of this House. Warrants issued under the Criminal Code or in connection with criminal matters are usually authorized by judges, and I do not know whether any were authorized with respect to members of parliament. The hon. member is asking me, in the latter part of his question, for more information than the law requires me to report. I will look into that aspect and see whether I can provide him with the information. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Given the fact that increasing unemployment and higher benefits affect the contributions of workers and employers, and noting that the minister in his last statement dealt with what we call an unwarranted tax, can the hon. gentleman assure the House that there will be no further increase in employer-employee contributions this year related to unemployment insurance? Mr. Speaker, I see no indication that there will be the requirement for an increase in the employer-employee premium rate this year. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, the minister who answers for the CBC. It concerns the refusal of the CBC to provide me with a transcript of the audio portion of the program "Ten Lost Years" telecast on the network on Sunday night, February 2. Will the minister instruct the CBC to provide me with that transcript? I ask the minister again, will he see that I am provided with this transcript? In my judgment, they go together. Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Olympic coins are considered legal tender, and since British Columbia is to my knowledge the only province charging a 5 per cent sales tax, can the minister advise the House whether the imposition of such a sales tax is legal, and if it is not, will he see that the money is paid back to the people or credited to the Olympic fund? Order, please. The rules of the question period clearly except asking a minister to give a legal opinion. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I would be allowed to rephrase the question. Is the minister aware that British Columbia is charging a sales tax? I will try to answer the question within the ambit of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. No tax attaches to Olympic coins which change hands at face value, but when they are sold by the banks for amounts above their face value, sales tax is applicable. Some of the provinces have agreed to waive the sales tax, but with respect to the first issue and the second issue some provinces have imposed a sales tax, including Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. If so, what were those views? Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the proposal made by Trizec, Hilton, CNR and Air Canada. The matter is under consideration now, but there is no indication that a fast decision is going to be taken on this very important matter. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has answered only part of my question. In view of the fact that this property is owned and paid for by the people of Canada and is public property, would the minister tell the House his position and the position of the government on the matter? Also, will they request or instruct Canadian National to hire management and expertise to run their hotel chain, thus retaining ownership in the hands of the Canadian public? Mr. Speaker, most of the important airlines in the world, such as TWA, Pan American, Air France and many others, have developed some hotels all over the world. Is it a good thing for Air Canada to do the same? That is the question we are looking into. There is no dubt in my mind that CN cannot make a deal with the hotels without the approbation of the Government of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works concerning the Perley Interprovincial Bridge between Hawkesbury, Ontario, and Grenville, Quebec. Following receipt of the consultant engineers' report concerning the structure of the Perley bridge, the assessment of the department was that the bridge would be replaced as soon as possible if this highway link was to be maintained. Also, with restricted truck loading the bridge could be kept in service for three to five years. Question. In co-operation with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, load limits were imposed on October 22, 1974, and a control station on the Quebec end of the bridge was operated by the province of Quebec on behalf of Public Works. Would the hon. member please put his question? Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for having drawn to my attention the fact that-- Oh, oh! You really must make your questions a little shorter. Mr. Speaker, I regret that illumination seems to distress the opposition. I am grateful to the hon. member for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that under the agreement with the province of Quebec the services offered by the minister of transport of Quebec do not seem to be provided. I will inquire into the matter. The fact that the control services are not operating does not mean that there will not be a new bridge, but we are continuing to proceed with negotiations with Ontario and Quebec in regard to financing of the new structure. Mr. Speaker, I also have a supplementary for the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of Public Works. In view of the slowness of negotiations and the small priority the riparian provinces seem to give to the solution of that serious problem, particularly to the urgent need for a new bridge for the security of those using it and for the economic life of the region, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to take the necessary measures to guarantee the population that the bridge will certainly be constructed in the near future? Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we will redouble our efforts to get the cooperation of the provinces. Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does the minister propose to make any changes in the regulations pursuant to the packaging and labelling act concerning products that are packaged and labelled outside the country and normally imported into Canada? Mr. Speaker, newspapers reported lately that as a result of these new regulations some products would no longer be allowed into Canada. I think that the implications of these new regulations has been much exaggerated. In any case, the officials of my department are reviewing these regulations to determine whether corrections can be made to help some companies which import these products continue their operations. If we find that such changes must be made, we shall announce them in the weeks to come. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister conduct his own investigation into the alleged misleading packaging of baby food, instead of waiting for the results of an investigation that is currently taking place in the United States? Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that in cooperation with the Department of National Health and Welfare, we are studying the American report to see if it can apply to Canada. The legislation is almost identical, but considerable differences do exist between the American and the Canadian legislation, and the criticism that applies to the United States may not apply at all to baby food sold in Canada. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the hon. member that the answer to both parts of the question is no. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns a number of Canadian civilians employed by the United States government on the U.S. naval station at Argentia, Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his representation. I am not fully informed on the facts in question. I will attempt to inform myself, and if there is a basis for representations I will be happy to consider that course. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On January 22 and again on January 24 the minister indicated that studies respecting discriminatory freight rates as they relate to the western provinces were almost ready. Would the minister tell the House how much longer we will have to wait before these studies are completed? Could I also ask the minister whether he will be making a statement on motions, and can he advise the House whether any corrective measures will be brought forth at that time to eliminate the discrepancies and anomalies to which these studies are directed? Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will recall that the commitment made by the railways was to the effect that they would supply the CTC and the Department of Transport with information concerning costs. That information was to be transmitted to the provinces which asked for cost disclosure and information on a confidential basis. This has been done and all the provinces have received much of the information for which they asked. They are studying it now. At the meeting we are going to hold in a few weeks, I think we will be discussing those items. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should have more confidence in the provinces than he seems to have. I have confidence in the provinces. We have transmitted the information, as we promised. I hope that shortly we will be discussing this disclosure bill during a debate here in the House. If the hon. gentleman wants to discuss whether we should respect the confidentiality of that information, I will be open to suggestions at that time. For the time being, I think the commitment of the railways was to the effect that they would provide the provinces with the information. The provinces want to determine whether there really is discrimination, and they want to be in a position to use the information they receive in presenting their case to the CTC. Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that the minister has seen the studies, and in view of the fact that there must obviously be some discrimination in respect of freight rates, is the minister going to bring forth a proposal to redress the discriminations and anomalies which are in existence? Mr. Speaker, I think that the groups or institutions which are in the best position to pass judgment on this are the provinces. They now have the information, and if they feel there is discrimination-- Oh, oh! Of course they feel there is discrimination. Everybody knows there is discrimination. You know there is; you are the Minister of Transport. Mr. Speaker, perhaps hon. members would listen for just a minute. An hon. member suggests that everybody knows there is discrimination. The provinces insisted on receiving this information. If they knew the facts, I do not know why they would insist on that. They have the information now and they can pass judgment and use the figures in order to support their argument, if they think there is discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport. We hear that the railway companies have decided to drop on February 15 the special rates on less than a carload of goods. The minister has received representations from his Liberal friends and others, and he has promised an investigation. Could he inform the House on this most urgent matter? Mr. Speaker, I regret but I did understand very well everything the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said, except the first part and I do apologize. Could he repeat it? Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister is not completely bilingual. Oh, oh! The railways are dropping "less than car load" freight rates in the Atlantic provinces on Saturday, February 15. The Minister has received representations from both sides of the House, as well as from all parts of the Atlantic provinces, asking him to look into this matter. Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly bilingual, I can give him an answer in French. There were discussions with the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, between the railways, the provinces and the people concerned on special rates, particularly on the so-called LCL rates. There was virtually perfect agreement with these three provinces. I received a telegram of protest from Newfoundland minister Rousseau; he seemed to be unsatisfied, but unfortunately there had not yet been any discussions with him. They are now underway and I have every reason to believe that there will also be an agreement in this case and that the province of Newfoundland will also be satisfied with the changes made, and that we will also be satisfied with the rates which will have been established. Mr. Speaker, would the minister give the House his reasoning in claiming that the major driving force behind inflation is coming from the rapid escalation in wage and salary costs? Mr. Speaker, I will send the hon. gentleman my full speech. When read in its full context, as it already has been by leaders of the labour movement, it did not prove offensive to them. Mr. Speaker, I will send that speech by special delivery. Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has informed me that he has investigated the matter of the contract solicitation of the American Central Intelligence Agency for information about transportation technology. Could the minister make a report to the House at this time? Mr. Speaker, I do have some information. If hon. members will bear with me, I should like to inform the House that I have been assured there is no intention of having a study of a secret character carried out of any western country. Moreover, no contract has been or will be let for a study devoted to advanced transportation technology in Canada. There may be reference to Canadian developments in this field in a more general study but, as I pointed out in the House earlier, this will be based solely on unclassified information openly available. I want to refer to one aspect of the letter which the hon. member was good enough to let me have -- the letter which referred to classified information -- and how that might be dealt with. I understand that this study, which is worldwide in scope and is dealing with new developments in transportation of a global character, will deal with some countries not as open as ours upon which the CIA may have classified information. If made available to the contractor, that information will have to be dealt with in the usually secure way. Using his available resources, the contractor will acquire technical information and develop a data base on free world developments in ground and air transportation technology. Prior to initiating such efforts a careful review of existing technical data sources including the collation of open literature must be made. I am sorry, I did not hear the last phrase. The critical sentence reads: Prior to initiating such efforts a careful review of existing technical data sources including the collation of open literature must be made. In other words, they were to look at unclassified information first and, following that, further information was to be gained. That is what I infer from it. The reference to Canada, as I understand it, while this study really has to do with the state of the transportation art throughout the world, is a reference to the technologically advanced industrial country which would be of some interest in that study. I may put my hon. friend's concern at rest by saying that in 1970 an agreement was reached between the then minister of transport, the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and his counterpart in the United States, Mr. Volpe, which provided for considerable exchange of transportation technology between the two countries. I am led to believe, in fact I am reliably informed, that we know everything we want to know about their technology and they know everything they want to know about ours. So any kind of study is quite uncessary. They did not have much to learn. May I ask the minister two more questions? When the Americans informed the Canadians that they were not interested in Canadian technological developments, did he ask them to explain the specific reference to Canada which appears on page 4 of the contract solicitation, or the reference on page 5 stating that information was to be obtained about "each country identified as representing potential technological and/or economic threats to the U.S. position", or how Canada was excluded from the references on pages 3 and 4 to the obtaining of information on free world transportation technology? I think the hon. gentleman should be made aware that this study is being carried out by the research and analytical side of the CIA, which is an entirely different operation. The references to Canada, as I have said, are in the context of a worldwide study examining the state of the transportation art, in which art Canada is regarded as having some technological advantages. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Today the minister again stated that he anticipates the cash needs of the government to be greater than $3 billion he forecast in his budget for the fiscal year 1976. Does he believe the $1 billion deficit forecast for budgetary transactions at that time will also be exceeded and, if so, by how much? Mr. Speaker, that will depend on the drawdown in the final two months of this year. In view of the minister's concessions yesterday and today that in fact the economy is performing more poorly than he anticipated when he brought in his November 18 budget, in particular with regard to unemployment, and in view of the fact that at the time the minister brought in his budget he stated that the situation might change and if it did he would not hesitate to recommend a change in direction, would the minister indicate why he still hesitates to do this in spite of his agreeing that changes are significant in our economy. Also, will he tell the House whether, while he hesitates, he has set up any special monitoring system to ensure that he knows first-hand the extent of the deterioration in the economy. The hon. gentleman has overstated the case. The reason I am looking at the situation closely without determining whether or not at the moment we should change course was stated by me in my reply to his leader yesterday. After looking at both those factors we will decide at the earliest possible opportunity whether or not additional stimulus is needed. I have a final supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Could he indicate specifically whether he has set up any special monitoring device to give him an early indication of the state of the economy, or is he relying simply on the advice of the group of seven? The Department of Finance has a continual monitoring device. Yes, taxation. Order, please. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax. The hon. member for York-Simcoe. On clause 1. Order, please. The business of the committee of the whole has been called and the hon. member for York-Simcoe has been recognized. The Chair would appreciate the co-operation of the committee so that the hon. member can be heard. Mr. Chairman, as a preliminary matter before we go into the extensive consideration of this bill clause by clause, I wonder if the minister could indicate if he has received any briefs from tax consultants in the legal, accounting or other appropriate fields, touching on Bill C-49, or on the ways and means motion that was previously tabled with respect to this bill and, if so, could we have the benefit of those briefs? Mr. Chairman, we have received a good many briefs from individual citizens and businesses across the country, as well as from lawyers and accountants, given to us on a privileged basis, giving their analyses of the statute. It has never been the practice to table those in the House because of confidential aspects regarding individual taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, while I am not particularly interested in the names of those who have submitted briefs, or in any of the confidential aspects of what they might have said, is there no way that at least a summary could be tabled in order to give all hon. members of this House an opportunity to review the criticisms, or otherwise, which may have been triggered as a result of this bill? Mr. Chairman, it is always open to anyone -- and certainly some associations have -- to approach the minister or the department to have those briefs released publicly. There is no way of providing a summary such as the hon. gentleman suggests. A good deal of the submissions were verbal. Mr. Chairman, throughout this bill there is going to be a great deal of consideration as to the revenue consequences of the various amendments to the Income Tax Act, and I feel it would be helpful if the Minister of Finance could give us an estimate or, better still, an actual figure with respect to tax deductions due to indexing in fiscal years 1974, 1975, and 1976, and the same figures for the calendar years 1974, 1975 and 1976. We will read that submission carefully and see if we can provide those estimates. When the minister and his officials are reading that request I would like them to note that I believe it would also be helpful if we could have a similar estimate, or the actual figures, for the gross tax reductions as a result of the provisions in this bill in the fiscal years and in the calendar years 1974, 1975 and 1976. I think it would be helpful if the figures could be shown, not only in a gross but also in an individual item by item fashion, presumably showing some miscellaneous item rather than having too much detail. I say this because I believe that, if the minister would oblige the committee with this type of information, it will save raising this type of question clause by clause. At that page the minister stated: ... This afternoon the hon. gentleman... Referring to myself. ... said that I had projected a cash deficit of $1.6 billion for 1974-75 and $3 billion for 1975-76. I would like the minister to show me where I said that in my remarks. Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is getting a little picayune. It might be an error in Hansard. I recall those cash deficit figures of $1 billion and $3 billion. $1.6 billion would be an error. I hope in statements I make in this House that I am responsible, and I take great issue with the minister's offhand comment, having made this statement which was totally inaccurate. I made no such reference, and I would like the minister to tell me if it is not true that on May 6, 1974 -- and I am referring to budgetary transaction -- he indicated that the forecast budgetary transaction deficit in fiscal year 1975 would be $450 million, and yet in his November 18, 1974, budgetary speech the same deficit with respect to budgetary transactions was shown as being at a $250 million surplus. That is correct, and I explained that in the November 18 budget as being due to increased revenues and some control on the expenditure side. If the minister checks my remarks he will find that that is exactly the turn around I referred to in my Monday statement, and I would ask that he correct the misinformation which he put in his speech, as it is now recorded at page 3066 of Hansard. No, Mr. Chairman, I will not because I was addressing myself to the argument which the hon. gentleman was introducing -- cash deficit figures against budgetary figures -- and commenting that they were apples and oranges. Perhaps the minister misses the point. In no way had I made the reference which he has alleged I made. He has agreed today that there was a deficit in his original May forecast, which changed to a surplus. In my remarks I referred specifically to that point, and yet today the minister will not stand up and admit his mistake and withdraw the comment which he made in his remarks on Monday. I will give him another opportunity. You're all heart. Mr. Chairman, I hope the record notes that the minister has made a misstatement on the record and that he refuses to change his words. I am sorry that the minister or his officials are not in a position to give us the figures with respect to indexing, but I will suggest that when those figures are tabled in this House they will show that he again was totally erroneous in his reference to my comments when he dealt with the question of the reduction to income tax payers as a result of indexing in this country. If I may deal specifically with clause 1, I would like to ask the minister if he could give us a brief explanation, beyond the explanatory notes with respect to clause 1. This amendment provides that if a taxpayer must send his children away from home to enable them to receive their education in his first language, any reasonable amounts received by the taxpayer from his employer in respect of the children's education do not have to be included by that taxpayer in his income. Subclause (2) of that same clause is again a relieving amendment to paragraph 6(4)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This amendment provides that no taxable benefit is conferred by the employer to the extent that his employee does reimburse him. As I read that, I would contemplate that the section, for example, in respect of a Canadian employee who is working in Brazil, means he would be entitled to the benefit of this clause, assuming that he is an English speaking person working in Brazil, only if he sent his child to the school closest to where he is working in Brazil. First, I would like to ask the minister to clarify whether I am correct in that assumption; and second, would he indicate why there would not be more encouragement given to allow that employee to have his child educated in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that it may not be the closest school, as worded in the subclause? The tax act does not pay for private schooling abroad nor for private schooling of those employees who may be abroad. That would be up to the company and the employee. To place some limit on this and protect the tax system, the word closest is used. Mr. Chairman, in case there is a misunderstanding of this wording am I correct in assuming that the clause would only allow the benefit contemplated if the child of the employee were educated, literally, in a school of the country the man is working in, or in the adjoining country? Is that technically correct? Mr. Chairman, this clause, of course, applies primarily to children educated in Canada. It might be that the employee of a Canadian company working in another country would not be subject to Canadian income tax, depending on what the treaty arrangement was. The hon. gentleman ought to look to the force of this section as applying to Canadian school children. Mr. Chairman, I am looking for clarification on the question of whether the force of the amendment will benefit an employee working in another country if his child, at his choice, is educated in Canada while there may be, technically, a closer school that does teach English that he could send the child to instead? The section says it must be the closest school, Mr. Chairman. I think that is an unfortunate aspect of this clause, Mr. Chairman. Surely if a Canadian is working abroad the government should be inclined to facilitate the education of his children at his choice, and preferably in Canada. I was wondering if the minister could give an explanation of why he thinks it so essential to force the child to attend some school that might be totally inadequate, simply because it happens to be closest to where the employee is working. Mr. Chairman, the place where the employee wants to educate his children might well depend on his arrangement with the employer. We are talking about a tax system here and having some general control over deductions for education. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that this is a reasonable way of looking at it. This is not subsidization of private schooling; this is subsidization of education at the closest school for the child. Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with the explanation. I am trying to make the point that I think it would be preferable, be it subsidization of private schools or not, that the bill allow this type of accommodation for expenditure on education of the child of an employee in Canada as opposed to deliberately wording it to force the child, if the parent wants to get the benefit of this section, to be educated in some perhaps inadequate school simply because it happens to be the closest to where he is working. In subclause (2), Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the $25,000 level referred to there. Could we have an explanation of this? It is because the benefit is not conferred if the employee reimburses. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York-Simcoe covered quite a bit of the ground that I was concerned about, but I wonder if the minister could give the revenue implications of the different measures, clause by clause, and the numbers of people who may be affected and so on. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York-Simcoe put that question to me as well, but it is impossible to do it on every clause. It is impossible to know how many people are going to take advantage of the provisions. We are dealing with an equitable tax system. The total revenues and total expenditures affected by the budget, and against which this bill operates, are contained in the budgetary papers in a good deal of detail. What is meant by child in clause 1? There is no reference to age. Can that mean someone who is 18 years old attending university? That is defined in the statute itself. Then a person going to university could qualify as long as he was a child? The answer is yes, but I would refer the hon. member to the definition in the statute itself. This is amendment, and most of the definitions are already contained in the statute. Mr. Chairman, the minister says this is a reasonable clause, but I should like to know how he proposes to administer and police it. How do we determine primary language? It is not defined anywhere. How do we determine what is the closest school? There are serious implications as far as policing and administration are concerned. Mr. Chairman, we operate under a voluntary self-assessment system which is checked on a spot check basis by auditors of the Department of National Revenue. Our whole system is based on that voluntary self-assessment, and we take it for granted that the ordinary taxpayer will do his best to assess himself in accordance with the tax forms reflecting the law. How is the definition of language satisfied here? The clause says: ... the language primarily used for instruction is the official language of Canada... That is either French or English. ... primarily used by the employee... The employee declares which is the language he primarily uses, and the Department of National Revenue would accept that. We felt it was proper to allow the revenue to carry that particular situation. I presume this refers to a contract between employer and employee. The employer is not going to give any money unless it is necessary, so why the restriction? It would seem to me that it is only when an employer finds it difficult to get an employee to work for him that he feels it necessary to make this arrangement. If it is part of the contract, then why should it be allowed? If this is part of the contract and an employer feels it is just, or the employee makes it a term of the contract that he be paid a sufficient amount of money to educate his child at the closest school in his own language and the employer pays that, then if this amendment were not introduced that allowance would be taxable in the hands of the employee. This amendment renders it a non-taxable benefit. Mr. Chairman, in view of the increasing cost of education and the serious impact of this on families, is the minister considering increasing the exemption for dependent children, and more specifically for child care? Since the minister has apparently been talking in terms of the cost of living, has he also considered increasing this exemption? Some of the exemptions are already indexed, Mr. Chairman. Any extension of that system would be a budgetary matter on which I would not like to comment. Dealing with the question of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, the relevant sections for the definition are 252 and 70 of the Income Tax Act. Mr. Chairman, on reading this clause of the bill, I was struck by what I consider a serious omission. The matter I am about to raise was brought to my attention by a constituent whose wife and two sons were killed in an automobile accident, and who gave up his job in order to raise and educate his remaining daughter. He can do this because he saved money earlier in his life. Owing to inflationary pressures he finds it increasingly difficult not to work and to devote himself entirely to the upbringing and education of his daughter. He finds that if he were to work, he could claim $750 as a deduction; now he cannot claim that money because he does not work. I thought, after reading his letter, that the officials of the minister's department might be sufficiently ingenious to draft an amendment which would allow him that tax deduction. When this man learns that an additional tax credit has been made available for those who want to send their children away to school, to be educated in the language of their choice, he will be more frustrated than he is now. Would the minister change the law, to allow the parent who is not working but is using his savings and devoting himself entirely to the education and care of his child, to claim that $750 deduction, an amount he could claim if he were to work and hire somebody to take care of his child? Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the person about whom the hon. gentleman has talked. He describes a father who, rather than work, stays home to look after his daughter. The tax system as of 1975 will give him some advantage. He is now allowed to claim $1,644 in respect of the child under the married equivalent exemption, rather than the $352 which he would normally be able to claim for the child under the age of 16. We have gone some way to meeting the hon. gentleman's point. The hon. gentleman's suggestion would mean that the total deduction for working mothers and working families should be extended, and should apply not only against working income but also against investment income. That would cause some problems. The Income Tax Act must be general in application. It is, by its nature, global. It cannot take cognizance of every difficult situation, although we try to meet as many as we can. We have gone some distance to meeting the problem described by the hon. member. I do not know how we can meet the situation in its entirety without leaving the act open to some abuse in cases where investment income could be reduced by child care expenses. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the clause could be so amended that it would apply to, say, a widow, parent, or widower, and not apply to the married couple which could use this provision as a tax dodge. Mr. Chairman, we have already met the point by moving from $352 to $1,644 in our exemptions. We have thrown in an extra $1,300 as a deduction to meet that particular situation. Mr. Chairman, I am taking advantage of the present opportunity for open discussion to talk about clause 4 and related clauses, in the hope I can persuade the minister to accept a suggestion. I am referring to the proposal I made to the minister on January 30 about the quarrel between the federal and ten provincial governments over resource taxation. That quarrel troubles industry. The arguments used on both sides of the quarrel no doubt are interesting, but our three major industries, mining, petroleum and forestry, are caught in the middle. The provinces levy taxes, and the federal government is saying they are non-deductible. To use round figures, if a provincial government levies a 40 per cent tax rate in the mining field, and the federal government says that the tax paid is not deductible and applies another 50 per cent, the industry becomes liable for a 90 per cent tax rate. Many mining communities in British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and several in Ontario and Quebec, are desperately frustrated and concerned about this quarrel. As Canadians, we all believe the quarrel will be resolved. The various parts of the bill are cross-indexed, and the minister's officials know better than anybody which are the relevant parts of the bill so affected. The effect of the amendment would be that clause 4 and other related clauses would not be proclaimed until after federal and provincial ministers have held a conference and decided on what is mutually agreeable and acceptable for the common interest of all people in Canada. I remind the minister that the conference held yesterday, as reported in this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail, represents the beginnings of a mutual accord between various levels of government. The newspaper report is so important that I shall read part of it into the record. One paragraph reads: Mr. Lougheed said afterward that "we have agreed to attend" the April 9-10 meeting, "we have agreed to discuss oil and (natural) gas prices" and, therefore, "we are not going to take any unilateral action on this matter prior to the conference." Clearly, that was a compromise type of statement. Another paragraph reads: The Prime Minister would say only that his talks with Mr. Lougheed had helped to pave the way to the first ministers' meeting and that it will not be held under crisis conditions, because of Alberta's decision not to force the oil pricing issue in the interim. I suggest that at times when the interest of the nation is so much at stake it would be greatly to our advantage if the Minister of Finance could help this feeling of goodwill along when the Prime Minister goes to that conference on April 9 and 10. He could do this by bringing in an amendment to clause 4 and related clauses giving an assurance to industry that this matter had not been irrevocably decided, by offering the chance of a compromise which would allow the industries in the various provinces to operate without this continual threat to the viability of their undertakings. The minister would be serving the country well, in my opinion, if he were to take such a position. As I put it the other day, Mr. Chairman, does the Prime Minister want to go into this conference with his hands bloody? Does he want to go in carrying a big club which he would be bound to use if this clause were passed? I do not intend to discuss now the argument as to the constitutional rights of the people of Saskatchewan to decide what they want to do with their own resources. That is clear enough according to the constitution. Nor shall I address myself to an economic argument at this stage. I am simply saying that everything has to be done to go into that conference on April 9 and 10 with the ability to negotiate and compromise. Alberta has agreed not to take steps to set the price unilaterally. It would be a good response on our part to say we do not intend to enact certain provisions in a bill such as this which, as I can point out, is unchangeable unless it is changed by parliament, before sending the Prime Minister into the forthcoming conference. In the period between now and April 9 the minister should consider going one step further, that is, putting on the table the parameters of a deal around which he thinks a settlement can be reached. To send the Prime Minister into that conference without setting such parameters, without doing any preparatory work in advance, can only guarantee failure. Perhaps the minister would consider the proposal I made in the House in January as a means by which the Minister of Finance might extricate himself from this impasse which is so dangerous, not just to the oil companies but to all the resource industries. He might well find there is some merit in it. I shall be speaking on this subject again when we come to clause 4. My question to the Minister of Finance is this: will he consider asking his officials to bring in this simple amendment which states it is not the intention of the government to proclaim clause 4 and the related clauses except by order in council? The executive would lose no effective power if this were done, but it would mean the Prime Minister could attend this conference in a negotiating mood rather than in a mood of confrontation. I was, of course, here in the House when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain made his suggestion. However, I do feel that there is enough uncertainty already in the resource field without adopting a new tax, a new approach. I am somewhat concerned about a mechanism whereby a tax bill will contain a discretionary element enabling a government to proclaim when a tax will become operative. I feel this might be derogatory of the right of parliament to decide here and now that a tax is to be imposed. I can recall instances in the past when discretion of that kind was quite properly withheld from a government or from a minister of finance. I say again that I believe it would inject too much uncertainty into the situation. The hon. gentleman talked about a club. Well, the power to proclaim would constitute just as much of a threat, except that it would be an uncertain threat; neither industry nor the provinces would know when or whether it was to be used. Another reason for my reluctance to accept the hon. member's suggestion is that I feel it would be a dangerous precedent to use a budget as a negotiating element through the agency of a "proclamation clause". Federal ministers would go to the meeting with the same type of club but one which was held, as it were, in a velvet glove. We take the position that the federal government deserves a fair share of resource revenue. I believe the hon. member is overstating the situation when he describes it as a constitutional impasse. Some progress has been made. All in all, I hope that when the first ministers meet in April they will do so under the umbrella of a good tone -- that there will be room to manoeuvre, on markets' price and I hope these limits will be sufficiently flexible to enable agreement to be reached, particularly in view of the welcome announcement by the premier of Alberta, to which the hon. member has referred, that he will not unilaterally raise prices. I assure the hon. member that I treat everything he says seriously. He knows what he is talking about. However, for the reasons I have put forward I am reluctant to accept his suggestion. Perhaps I might continue this dialogue a little further. It seems to me that, in effect, the minister has accepted the argument I was putting forward. The fact is, despite acceptance of the principle that royalties charged by the provinces were non-dedectible, the government went right on, the other day, to announce an exception in the case of the Syncrude project. I put it to the minister, as was surely obvious to him, that when he loses his virginity, as he has in this case, by undermining the rigidity of the budget proposals at the very time the budget was under discussion in the House, he cannot expect others to refrain from calling for further modifications. What I am suggesting here is that if parliament passes a law making all provincial tax and royalties on resources non-deductible, then under my conception of carrying out the executive function it will be impossible for any member of the executive to say that the government will make them deductible unless we come back to the House in order to amend the legislation. Instead of putting the Minister of Finance in such a terrible position that he has no arguments on which to stand, what he should do is to keep his options open. Parliament will pass this legislation because it has the votes here to do so. My suggestion is that the minister should say he does not intend to have an absolute direction from the parliament of Canada that all provincial taxes and royalties on resource industries should be non-deductible. If my reasoning is correct and they go to the conference on this basis, it is possible to negotiate. This immediately brings to mind something that most of us fear the most in the federal system, namely, that you unite all provinces against the federal government. When union of the provinces takes place, history has shown that every time it is the federal government that loses. I happen to be a strong federalist. I support a strong federal government. But at the same time the only way we can make the system work is to have consultation rather than confrontation. I would hope the minister has not closed the door entirely, so I will repeat my question. I would ask him to consider it before we get to clause 4. If the minister has this right to proclaim, then there is still uncertainty. Under my suggestion there will be no uncertainty for the next two months. Without my suggestion, businesses in the throes of trying to decide whether they should go on taking these losses every month will quit right away. But if they know that there is a chance, then they will hang on. I speak on this matter with some personal interest since I have several small Canadian companies in my riding which are seriously affected by this situation. Even though only some 200 to 300 families are affected, it is a pretty serious matter for them. I think we could keep their management hanging on for another couple of months if they thought that, out of the discussions being held on April 9 and 10, some relief for them would flow. My personal feelings would be multiplied many times in all these mining towns in B.C. where mines have quit operating and others are considering doing so because they are unable to continue with their projected cash flow for this year. It is silly for these mines to continue using up their ore when all their money goes in government taxes. Under the suggestion that I am putting forward I do not think the government will lose one iota of power. I would ask the minister to consider that proposition between now and the time we reach clause 4, and if he thinks there is some merit in my argument, then I hope his staff will produce an amendment, one that is practical and realistic, which the House can accept. I think this could be done on an all party basis. We will not take away any of the minister's or the government's rights. I simply ask that before parliament passes the edict that no provincial taxes or royalties are deductible, let there be one more opportunity for consultation to see whether there can be agreement. Perhaps during the course of negotiations we can set some limit that will satisfy the federal government that the provinces have reduced their royalty taxation level to a point with which they can live. This would mean the federal government could come down a little bit too. I do not think this proposal destroys the minister's options, and I ask him to think about it. Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that the proposal in clause 1 of the bill to attend the nearest school may not serve the purpose intended. Sometimes there are transfers of personnel across Canada. For example, a family from Victoria might very well be transferred to Sherbrooke, or a family from St. John's might well be transferred to Quebec City. In this kind of situation it might be very inconvenient for a family to attempt to educate its children at the nearest school. A family might be transferred from Lac St. Jean to Calgary, and perhaps the handiest school in which the family can educate its children in French might be at St. Boniface. This places the family in a sort of no man's land where it has no connection or familiarity with its surroundings, and imposes a hardship that I do not think the bill intends to impose. It could not be described as less than charitable if one were to ask the minister to use a word other than nearest. If the family cannot be educated in the community in which the husband is employed, then surely he should have the option of educating his family in the community from which he came, or in the community which he might ordinarily call home, where the surroundings would be familiar. If the minister does not want to do this on behalf of the father, then I plead with him to do it on behalf of the children. He should give children the most convenient possible opportunity to be educated. I ask him not to limit the school to the nearest school, because this could impose a very serious hardship on some people. While the act is intended to be generous to some people, this generosity may be defeated by the restrictive words "school closest to". I should also like to say a few words on the subject that has been under discussion, namely, that of royalties, and the tax exemption clause applying to them. There is a very distinct philosophical change being imposed upon Canadians by the government. It has come with little, if any, notice and has been precipitated, I agree, by some unusual approaches on the part of provincial governments to tax structures. What is the consequence of this? About a month ago I was discussing the impact of this bill with a citizen of a community in Canada that is totally dependent upon a mine located within that community. The ore body consists of a varied concentration of metals which are being removed. The direct line royalties imposed by the province, and the lack of exemption of royalties as a tax, have forced the company to move into a high grading proposition, and has certainly reduced the life span of that mine by one, two or three decades, depending upon the value of the minerals, the metals, as they are extracted. This is a direct result of a rigid position imposed by provincial and federal governments without consideration for labour or capital opportunity -- either one -- required in mines where metal in a particular ore may be pretty scarce. While it may look good to extract from our natural resources the maximum amount of income at both the provincial and federal level, it is pretty nearly time that both provincial and federal governments took a humanistic approach to determining how much employment is involved, and how much wasted metal is left behind which might otherwise have been extracted. It is not too long ago that the provinces of Canada found it necessary in some instances to deal with developing mining corporations on the basis of a royalty collected by the provinces according to percentage of profit. There is one community in Canada where some 2,000 or 3,000 people are now directly employed as a result of federal-provincial negotiations on a friendly basis. This was the result of a mining company being allowed to go in with a type of conglomerate and carry out development. I am sure the minister is familiar with the area I have in mind. These several thousand people would not be working today had it not been for the flexibility of policy on both the provincial and federal levels in respect of royalties. It seems to me that the minister does not really care very much about what anybody says in this regard, or perhaps it is extremely humorous to him that 10 years from now such a community might be evacuated because of the rigid federal and provincial decisions now being taken. I think that is an extremely serious situation, one which Canada is galloping toward by confrontation, lack of consideration, and negotiation on the basis of powers both federal and provincial. This does not only apply to the west, that is, Alberta or British Columbia; it applies to the Atlantic region as well. In the forestry industry, for instance, there has been no definite statement by the government that would indicate a stumpage, or any other charge by the Crown in a province against industry, will be a deductible expense. There has been no direct statement to clarify that situation. This situation has an effect in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and others, and it is extremely important. There has been no definition as to what might be allowed as a stumpage charge by a provincial government. Is this a royalty, a tax, or what is the position? We are not dealing just with the province of Alberta or the province of British Columbia; we are dealing with something that affects all provinces as a result of this distinct change in the philosophy of the government of Canada. This change further subjugates the provinces to the authority of the federal government, and this is a deplorable situation. I believe in a strong federal state within the scope intended when our Confederation was formed. I do not believe that the government of Canada should impose itself in fields which were never intended as its own. This philosophy subjugates the provinces to the whims of the government in Ottawa, and that never was intended at any time when a province became a part of Confederation. The provinces have seen their fields of authority, including health, education and others, virtually emasculated by the imposition from above of the policies of the federal government. Now the last area in which the provinces had an element of independence is being taken away by the imposition of an income tax structure that further subjugates the provinces to the whims of the government of Canada. This is an unfortunate position in which the provinces find themselves. I sincerely believe there is a limit to this and that the limit should be clearly delineated in this act, beyond which royalties cannot be charged by the provinces and still be tax exempt. I wish there were a reasonable standard established within which the provinces might work. In this way perhaps the mining corporations could continue to mine all the ore, and not just carry out the high grading which is taking place at this time. A lot more ore that was formerly saleable is now being left in the ground, and many mining communities will be abandoned decades earlier than necessary because of an act which fails to take into consideration the actual costs of operation and the humanitarian results of employment for the people. This is a social problem which indicates the need for a change in federal philosophy under which this government imposes strictures on the provinces that they do not deserve. I would plead with the minister to get himself out of the straitjacket in which he was placed himself, and relieve the provinces from the straitjacket this government has laced on them by the inconsiderate legislation contained in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take a great deal of the committee's time, but I do want to talk about one aspect of the minister's budget which relates to this matter of the deductibility of exploration expenses. In the budget of May 6 the minister indicated that exploration expenses would not be deductible. I guess the computer said that would be O.K. and would do no harm to Canada's future supplies. After the representations the minister received and, I presume, a reprogramming of the computer, the minister realized in fact that this was not the situation and that it would not be in the best interests of Canada to change the law, disallowing the deductibility of exploration expenses from income tax. There is one other provision I wish the minister would consider, and that is the matter involving the principal business test inherent in the legislation. The Canadian income tax law justifiably provides that when filing an income tax return one is required to consolidate one's income. A professional who owns a pizza parlour, for example, in submitting his income tax forms must consolidate the income from his profession with the income from his pizza parlour business. If the pizza parlour loses money, then the individual has a negative income which he combines with his professional income. This situation is true under our income tax laws, with three exceptions, or perhaps with only two after the passage of this bill. Those three exceptions relate to real estate income, or income from rental property, income from farming when that is not the principal income, and income in respect of the oil and gas industry. There was a change in the law which disallowed the consolidation of professional and real estate income when the real estate income was in a loss position. That, I understand, is being changed, and hopefully will result in more rental property for Canadians. The second exception is in respect of gentlemen farmers. The loss provisions under the Income Tax Act are only available to farmers when farming provides the principal income. The third area of discrimination exists in respect of the oil and gas industry. In other words, if a professional or a man in some other business not related to oil and gas went into the oil and gas industry by drilling a well in the hopes of discovering oil or gas, and had a dry well, the loss incurred could not be consolidated with his principal income. That feature of our income tax law, more than any other single aspect, is responsible for the oil and gas industry in Canada being 99 per cent foreign owned today. Because that provision does not apply to non Canadians, to Americans in particular, American professionals, people with a discriminatory income, could in fact drill a well in Canada on pre-tax dollars, whereas a Canadian could not. There are scores and scores of examples of geologists, or people knowledgeable in the oil industry, having developed what is called in the industry an "attractive play", looking for investors to join in putting up a drilling fund to drill for oil. When they approach a Canadian, the Canadian must invest after-tax dollars, while an American can invest pre-tax dollars. The net result is that on a competitive basis the Canadian has no chance. It is absolutely absurd that we have had this law on our books all these years, a law which says that Canadians are at a competitive disadvantage in making investments in Canada in comparison with Americans. This should not be news to the minister. I am aware of at least six major representations brought to the Department of Finance, to the predecessors of this minister, in the last 20 or 30 years, showing what is happening in the oil and gas industry and showing the discriminatory aspects of the legislation and the damage being done to Canada in the long run. I wonder if that is not still the attitude of the government. If it is, then it is appalling. I bring this up at this time because I think it is a particularly appropriate time for the minister to reconsider this matter. I am sure that he is aware that there has been a significant decrease in the exploration and development of the conventional oil industry in Canada, especially in the Great Plains area. Personnel and equipment are leaving, and the long-term projections should be of some concern if we are trying to achieve or maintain self-sufficiency in oil and gas in Canada. A stimulus is needed in that industry. The minister has expressed great reluctance to back off on the question of nondeductibility of royalties which affects the cash flow position of the major companies, and therefore affects their ability to pursue active exploration and development. But in terms of the Canadian independents who have been doing the bulk of exploration and development in the Great Plains area in the past, the problem has been to find drilling funds. Their problem is finding investors who are willing to put money into this high risk venture to find oil and gas. If that provision in the Income Tax Act were removed, if discrimination against Canadians were removed, if discrimination against western Canada in particular were removed, it would have a tremendous impact on the amount of exploration and development carried out in this country. It would increase the Canadian content in terms of future development, which is supposedly a desirable goal of this government, it would save jobs, the expertise and the equipment which are leaving the country at an alarming rate, and it would help the Canadian independents, that portion of the oil and gas industry which is still Canadian owned. Small though they may be, at least they deserve our compassion, and if given the proper climate in which to operate, and the opportunity to raise investments in Canada, they could go a long way toward providing future oil and gas that we in Canada will need. The removal of this provision would remove the discriminatory aspect of this legislation. If people on the other side have wondered out loud or privately what the reason for western alienation may be, why westerners feel they are being discriminated against, they may find transportation to be one of the root causes, but this provision in this legislation is one of the main causes. I am referring to this feature in the Income Tax Act applying to the oil and gas industry. The fact is that governments for some time now have not been really concerned about the discriminatory aspects of this act. They did not care that Americans could drill an oil well in Alberta cheaper than could Canadians. That did not matter to all the previous governments. In the interest of trying to improve Liberal fortunes in western Canada, to save the expense of repeated WEOP conferences, every time you think you need a better public relations boost, you might look at this little provision. If you try to work out the cost in the computers I think you will find that it will not cost the treasury that much money, and it will do a lot to get the industry revitalized and to attract increased Canadian participation to this vital industry. It is an important move that could be made at this time, and I heartily recommended it to the minister in the hope that he will give it serious consideration. Mr. Chairman, I will certainly do that. Of course this brings into sharp relief the conundrum in every aspect of the income tax legislation. One has to balance equity against incentive. The hon. member for Calgary Centre is talking in terms of incentive, of getting more Canadian money into the Canadian owned oil business. Against that is the equity side of the argument as to how much we should allow people in one business, with a good income from that business, to have deductible expenses against that principal business invested in other sorts of enterprises. That is an argument that one has to balance, and this is a good illustration of it. The hon. member is stressing the incentive. Under the tax reform affecting this particular aspect of the act, equity won over incentive. In other words, it was decided that a man or a woman could only deduct from his or her income those expenses legitimately incurred for the purpose of earning his or her income in his or her principal business. So at the time of the tax reform affecting the real estate business, those who were not principally in that business were no longer able to deduct against other principal income expenditures incurred in building apartment houses and so on. It is really a policy decision. Of the two current exceptions to it that the hon. member recited, one was reintroduced in this budget to allow those not in the principal business of real estate to invest in multi-unit tenant housing up to the end of 1975. We even had the support of the premier of British Columbia on that. The other exception is the gentleman or hobby-farmer provision whereby a person not in the business of farming can still deduct up to $5,000 a year for farming expenses. I suppose one could weigh incentive against equity in saying it is useful to have agricultural land under production. In any event, the hon. gentleman's colleague, the hon. member for Calgary South, has made his point to me both publicly and privately, as have the hon. members for Edmonton Centre and Edmonton West. They will be able to tell their constituents about it next time they are home. In any event what the hon. member is saying is that the incentive now is so important that we ought to take another look at it. We will. Just one moment; that is only partial. I am saying that there is need for an incentive now, because of the decreased activity. So my argument is that rather than looking at foreign takeover review boards, et cetera, to implement a policy of Canadian ownership, let us for goodness sake at this time remove this feature of the Income Tax Act. The minister agreed about real estate, but there is a multiplicity of businesses in Canada to which this does not apply. In fact this is a discrimination against one particular industry rather than a consistent policy of balancing equity against incentive, I think those were the minister's words. The minister commented on the frosting, but the central cake remains. Let us do something to encourage Canadians to participate in this Canadian industry which is so important to the country. Mr. Chairman, I think under clause 1 I have some latitude, and I would like to address some remarks through you, to the minister, with references to mining taxation. I am sure that the minister is aware that being the member from Kootenay West I have a tremendous responsibility to my constituents and to the mining community, not just to Rossland, but also to some 3,000 workers in Trail, to the upper Slocum Valley, to Salmo, and if I may speak for the hon. member for Okanagan Kootenay, there is a responsibility to the mines in Kimberley, the economy of Cranbook, Elkford, Sparwood and Fernie. We are talking about many people and much mining industry. There is a great depth of concern as you can readily appreciate, particularly in British Columbia, with the mining situation and with the provision of the mining tax, the royalties and super royalties which apply. I would like to reverse the argument, or reverse my approach, and endorse wholeheartedly the argument and the persuasion which have been presented by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. I wonder if the minister has reflected on Canada's reserves of ore. I wonder if he has looked at Canada's nickel resources. Do the people of Canada, including hon. members of this House, realize that 20 per cent of the metal, nickel lies in Canada, and 80 per cent lies outside Canada? We Canadians are rather peculiar people when it comes to thinking about our mineral resources. We seem to feel that we have the whole bundle and that it is all right here. British Columbia believes that it does not have to develop it, that it can be left in the ground, and that it will become more valuable as time goes on. That's right. That is just not so. You just don't know your facts and figures if that is what you believe. Hear, hear! It is not just nickel; it is all the other ores. Look at the ores which are available. I am concerned about the fact that we have removed the three year tax free period for new mines and the depletion allowance of 33 1/3 per cent, and now we have the imposition of this federal tax. The mining companies are going to be paying 70 per cent, 80 per cent, or more than 100 per cent in taxation on their taxable income, and that of course will depend on their profitability. My rip-off artist friend over here says that of course these mining companies are busy ripping off the people. Is 72 1/2 per cent taxation considered to be a rip-off? And that does not include sales tax, or tax on shareholders' dividends. I am speaking of the year 1973 when Cominco paid $21,200,000 in dividends, and that did not include the tax on the wages of Cominco employees. It is the belief of the mining industry that the federal tax, particularly as it applies in British Columbia, but which must also be considered in relation to Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, is something it simply will not be able to withstand. In this time of recession, whether it is pending or upon us, we cannot have the mining community going into that recessive, regressive state. The country just simply cannot afford it. My community cannot afford it. The 3,000 smelter workers in Trail cannot afford it, and we must avoid that type of confrontation. What do the investment firms say? They say to stay out of B.C. mining. Look at exploration in British Columbia now. What exploration? There is no exploration in British Columbia, and what little there may be is surely going to go down the tube with the imposition of the proposed federal tax. I do not wish to belabor the point. I am sure the minister has heard some very valid arguments on behalf of the mining communities. I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has offered some very sound alternatives, but I would make reference to two or three printed remarks which I would like to see on the record. The combined tax and royalty rate imposed on mining companies in British Columbia in particular cases may approach, and possibly exceed, 100 per cent mining income. Not even the government of Canada operates on that type of financial structure. It is clear that the increase in taxes on royalties from 1971 to 1975 for a company operating in British Columbia or Ontario was staggering. In British Columbia the total effective royalty mining and income tax rate increased by 30 percentage points from a little over 41 per cent in 1971 to almost 71 per cent in 1975. In Ontario the corresponding effective rate increased from 43 per cent in 1971 to 63 per cent in 1975, a jump of 20 percentage points. In the same period total federal and provincial taxes on manufacturing income decreased significantly. The total effective rate of approximately 50 per cent in 1971 dropped to 42 per cent in 1975, primarily as a result of the decreasing general federal tax rate, and the federal manufacturing and processing profits reduction. If we can do this for the manufacturing industry, why can we not do it for the mining industry? In 1971, directly or indirectly, mining provided employment for 10 per cent of Canada's total employed labour force. Let us suppose that the taxation that is proposed only affects 1 per cent of Canada's labour force in the beginning. What does this parliament and the government feel the response of the country would be to that level of unemployment? Over 153,000 people in 1973 were directly employed in exploration and development activities. In that year average weekly wages and salaries in the mining industry were the second highest of any industrial group in Canada. The total wages for 1973 were $1.7 billion. Are prospects for the future better or worse? A quarter of a million Canadians participate as shareholders in mining companies, receive dividends, and pay taxes on those dividends. Mining companies spend millions of dollars annually in capital and repair projects, thus creating employment. THe arguments I present may not be as knowledgeable or persuasive as those of other experienced members of parliament, but I have a deep responsibility to my constituency, to the mining community and the mining companies. I ask the minister to consider very seriously the proposal made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. I am sure that this parliament and the government would endorse such a proposal, and I think it should be accepted with the same measure of sincerity as with which it was presented. Madam Chairman, I did not intend to enter the debate at this time nor do I intend to debate in detail the alleged plight of the resource companies, particularly the mining companies. There has been a great deal of evidence over the years of the deliberate policy of federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative, to encourage the growth and development of the resource industries. A whole variety of tax inducements were offered -- fast write-offs, three years of production before being required to pay taxes, special concessions for oil and gas exploration -- a whole series of things, which we have itemized on other occasions and which I shall not repeat now. I could not let the remarks of the last speaker go by, however, without putting the real facts on the record. One would think that the provincial governments were rapacious -- and not just the NDP governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The Alberta government has increased the taxes and royalties that it collects from the mining and oil companies very sharply, as has the Conservative government of Ontario. A very serious argument has developed between the federal government and the provinces which have taken the view, first of all on constitutional grounds, that natural resources belong to the provinces under the provisions of the BNA Act and, secondly, that until now successive federal governments have not taxed the resource industries to any extent. There is a real conflict about what the provinces consider to be the sudden and unwarranted intrusion of the federal government into a tax field it has not been involved in previously. I want to put on the record the fact that the claims made by the previous speaker that mining companies are being taxed so heavily they cannot exist, simply is not true. It is not true according to the evidence which they themselves have presented. No one could accuse that journal of being very radical, revolutionary or anti-business. Under the heading "Times' Top Hundred" it gives a list of companies, and shows how they have performed in the last four or five years. I went through it very quickly, but I should like to put on the record the cases of five mining companies, beginning with one the hon. member spoke of so feelingly, Cominco. They report the net profits of Cominco-- Madam Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Will the hon. member for Winnipeg North permit a question? Yes. I should like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North if, prior to giving the figures he proposes to give with reference to Cominco, he is first prepared to reveal the extent of the international development they have been forced into by virtue of Canadian circumstances? I hope he is prepared to reveal to the House how much international involvement they are into, and all those countries to which they have had to go. Where do they make their money? I hope he will tell us that. Madam Chairman, I have not got that information now, nor do I think it is very germane. They are spending their money somewhere else. For example, consider what happened in Saudi Arabia. That country's conservative government, headed by King Feisal, took over the entire oil resources of that country. Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is suggesting that I, and the speaker who preceded the hon. member, spoke totally in support of corporations. Speaking for myself, nothing could be further from the truth. I ask him to read what was said, instead of drawing inferences from what he apparently did not hear. I pleaded on behalf of the work force in New Brunswick, British Columbia and Alberta. I spoke of mining towns which will become ghost towns in the near future unless something is done. I did not ask for corporations to be protected. Our system must be protected. I did not single out a company; I spoke mainly on behalf of labour. Order, please. The hon. member must be aware that he has raised a point of debate, not a point of order. Madam Chairman, I was not referring to the speech of the hon. member who raised a spurious point of order. I was referring to the comments of the hon. member for Kootenay West, who preceded me. You didn't hear what he said, either. Madam Chairman, hon. members have the right to disagree with me. At committee stage, members may make two or three speeches, if they so wish. I have a right to my point of view, and to make it known. I intend to do that. I am not perturbed when hon. members interject and raise spurious points of order. I was suggesting that companies extracting and processing minerals in Canada have done extremely well. Federal and provincial taxes have not reduced their profits; actually their profits have increased substantially. I want to put on record evidence which substantiates my claim. It is evidence which the companies provide to a reputable newspaper, the Financial Times. Before I was so rudely interrupted I was about to put on record the reported profits of several companies, beginning with Cominco Ltd., the corporation which, according to the member who spoke before me, has been seriously hurt by federal and provincial governments. It is poverty stricken. They increased after the NDP government took over. Yes. I am not saying they increased because the NDP government took over; I am merely stating facts. Let us look at International Nickel, the company which is supposed to be starving. According to the Financial Times of January 27, 1975, company net profits were as follows: in 1969, $116 million; in 1970, $208 million; in 1971, $94 million; in 1972, $109 million; and in 1973, $226 million. They are really starving. I have shown what has happened to companies working under an NDP government in Manitoba and a Conservative government in Ontario. Next, let us look at Noranda, another mining giant. Company profits were as follows: in 1969, $54 million; in 1970, $59 million; in 1971, $61 million; in 1972, $69 million; and in 1973, $121 million. To my knowledge the company does not operate in any NDP provincial jurisdiction. Next, consider Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd. They made the following profits: in 1969, $10.9 million; in 1970, $17.5 million; in 1971, $8 million -- this is round figures; in 1972, $5 million; and in 1973, $21 million. Let me refer to one more company, Rio Algon Mines Ltd. Its profits were as follows: in 1969, $15 million; in 1970, $15 million; in 1971, $9.7 million; in 1972, $16 million; and in 1973, $52 million. These figures show our mining companies are doing well, that profits go up and down, partly because of taxes, but mainly because of market price. In 1972 and 1973 mineral and commodity prices rose; the companies I referred to charged world prices and made a lot of money. We do not have figures for 1974, but I know that metal prices are down substantially. So, company profits will be down, not because of taxes, but because prices are down. No NDP member, either in this House or in a provincial legislature, has said that mining companies have no right to exist. No one says they are not entitled to a fair profit. We merely say that mining companies should pay the same kinds of taxes other companies in this country pay. We must keep in mind the point made so well by a former Liberal cabinet minister, Mr. Kierans. He said that what we do-- This sounds like the beginning of his leadership campaign. I can tell the Minister of Finance that I had occasion by accident to run into the former Liberal cabinet minister, Mr. Kierans, and he told me he is not a candidate for the leadership of any party -- that he has no interest in going back into politics. Don't believe all you hear. What the committee should be considering is this: all our tax policies since the end of World War II have been devised to encourage the development of the resource industry, mining, oil and gas. Those industries have consistently paid taxes in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent on their profits, as compared with three or three and a half times as much by manufacturing industries. Yet it is the manufacturing industries which are job intensive. This country has one of the fastest growing labour forces in the world, yet we have continued over the years to discourage labour intensive manufacturing industry while encouraging resource industries which are capital intensive. This is the matter to which we ought to address ourselves instead of lecturing the government, as do members on the Conservative side, for collecting too much by way of taxes. The hon. member who preceded me said we cannot afford to leave these resources in the ground. I would remind him that the population of the world is increasing at a tremendous rate and there is no question that all the resources, not only of Canada but of the entire planet, will be needed in the next 100 years. We are not saying we ought not to develop our resources. We say: let us develop the resources of this country when it benefits the people of this country, not just the corporations. If Cominco, International Nickel, or any other corporation wants to go to New Caledonia, or Indonesia, by all means let them go. They know the facts of political life in the world as well as any other member of parliament here. They know that whatever government is in power in Canada, federal or provincial, it will not expropriate their properties in the same way as oil company property has been expropriated elsewhere. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Madam Chairman, I do not see anything wrong about an hon. member pointing out the truth when we have heard so many untruths in the last little while from members to my left. I represent well over 100,000 people in the constituency of Calgary South and they, as well as the rest of the people in Canada who have an interest in this subject, deserve to hear some of the facts and some of the truth rather than the untruths we have been hearing in the last few months. I was rather surprised that in his remarks on January 28 the minister should have devoted so much attention to the meeting of the premiers. He devoted a large part of his speech to this subject, and I am sure the reason he did so was the strong feeling of guilt over what happened at that meeting on March 28. The minister protested very strongly and I should like to hear his comments later, on what I have to say. It is clear that when the premiers and the Prime Minister met last March they intended to reach an agreement which would last for 15 months. It was understood that the meeting this year would review the oil prices in the light of current world conditions, it being felt that those prices would, in all probability, again be escalated. I say that since the revenue sharing arrangement agreed to was only a temporary arrangement and it would be assumed by anyone that any change in tax laws would come only when the first ministers sat down to restructure all these sharing arrangements. I am surprised that the minister should have stated on January 28 that the provinces took unilateral steps to alter radically their royalty structures without first consulting with the federal government. While this may be the case as far as British Columbia and Saskatchewan are concerned, it is clear from the correspondence now published between the premier of Alberta and the Prime Minister that the Alberta royalty rates were known to the Prime Minister well in advance of the March agreement. I believe the Prime Minister should acknowledge this fact publicly. The minister refers to royalty charges as "thinly disguised income taxes," stating that income taxes have customarily not been deductible since Confederation. Is he not aware that income taxes paid by Canadian companies to foreign governments are, in fact, fully deductible when computing Canadian income tax? The minister proudly stated in the House on January 28 that measures to disallow provincial royalties when calculating federal income tax did not in themselves reduce the return to the provinces but serve only to prevent the provincial levies from undermining the federal treasury. Unfortunately, he did not recognize in the course of his speech that those measures did, nevertheless, go a long way toward smothering a vibrant and viable industry -- mining, as well as oil and gas. He should be ashamed of himself for saying that the changes proposed in the November budget did not violate the letter or the spirit of the agreement arrived at by the first ministers. He stated that the question of the relationship between federal and provincial resource taxes never formed any part of that agreement, and that consequently the budget proposals could not in any way be construed as a breach of that agreement. I can only say that when a short-term arrangement was arrived at, to be re-negotiated within 15 months, bearing in mind that all parties to that meeting claimed that provincial, federal and resource industry needs would be well served by the conclusions of that meeting, a violation of the agreement did in fact take place when the minister presented his budgets of May 8 and November 28. No matter what arguments may be put forward it was clearly an underhanded deception when the federal government failed to advise the provinces on March 27 specifically on the changes to be made in the tax rates. If the Minister of Finance intended to make these changes to alter the revenue sharing from resources, did he not recognize that a vital ingredient in the economy and private sector was threatened by the action he was taking? I suggest to the committee that notwithstanding what has been said by the members on my left, the mining industry and the oil and gas industry of Canada over a long number of years have done a very good job of finding reserves of minerals, oil and gas, under the most arduous and difficult of conditions. Indeed, I think the important thing to remember is that Canada today is the only developed country in the world which can claim self-sufficiency in most vital commodities, including oil and gas. The minister explained in his remarks to the House that the federal government is not a beneficiary of the export charge which is applied to western oil moving to the United States. I am surprised, in light of the difficulty that has developed between the provinces and Ottawa, that very little recognition is given to what western Canada is doing for the rest of the country. In fact most of the words we hear about the western provinces are words of criticism. I think it important to emphasize, however, that western Canada at the present time is subsidizing eastern Canada by an amount of something over $4 million per day. I think it is also important to recognize that something in the order of 40 per cent of our crude oil which is refined goes into gasoline. In other words, to a very large extent western Canada is subsidizing the oil that the eastern provinces use for automobiles, sports cars, or any other type of use that requires gasoline. I recognize that public transport is also a user of gasoline, but a very large percentage of gas used in automobiles is subsidized. A few years ago, but after the present Prime Minister had come to power, and during a period in which the Minister of Finance was part of the government, approaches were made to the federal government by the western provinces that could not sell their oil at that time, to construct a pipe line to Montreal. There were a great many security implications in constructing a line at that time. After various meetings it was pointed out by the Prime Minister and his cabinet that the pipe line would not be constructed from western Canada since it would cost consumers in the Montreal market something in the order of one cent per gallon extra. On this basis they were not prepared to build a pipe line. What they preferred to do, Madam Chairman, was to save one cent a gallon and to import oil from Venezuela. This is just one illustration of the complete ignorance of the facts and the lack of policy which the Trudeau government has demonstrated over the years in this very important area. As reported at page 2693 of Hansard, the minister quoted percentages of petroleum production revenue to illustrate the fact that the federal government's share would have decreased while that of the provinces would have soared if it were not for the minister's November budget. The minister then projected these percentage petroleum revenues to the end of the decade. In all fairness, the petroleum industry is changing very, very rapidly. I am sure that when the first ministers meet this coming April there will be further escalations in the price of oil, probably in the order of $2.50 a barrel. It would seem that at that time all of these sharing agreements will again come up for discussion. Surely this would have been the time to advise the provinces just what level of royalty collection would be acceptable to the federal government. The minister complained that this is not revenue received by the federal government; it is paid out by way of subsidy. But surely it must be recognized that when the premiers met with the Prime Minister last spring they agreed to give up the export tax in view of concessions that were made to them. So I think it is essential that the minister at long last come to grips with the question. He has conveniently or accidently ignored the question of the export tax and total dollar amount on every occasion when he has stood up to speak on this subject. I have a couple of questions I should like to ask the minister. Will he tell the committee what is the cost to the federal government of full deductibility of royalties in total dollars? I should also like the minister to tell the committee what is the dollar cost of permitting deductibility of royalties up to 25 per cent, presuming that this can be translated back to the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan. I should also like to ask the minister about his long-term projections. He holds a special position as chairman of the committee of the International Monetary Fund which considers loans to countries that are suffering from serious oil deficiencies. Would the minister let the committee know whether he has made any projections for Canada borrowing from this fund as we reach the end of this decade and in the early 1980s? Any reasonable projection based on National Energy Board figures indicates that we are going to be in the position of having to call upon this fund of which the minister is chairman. My next question has to do with tar sands plants. The minister had a good deal to say last week, as did other members of the government, about the Syncrude project. The factors that have made Syncrude viable -- that is, world price and deductibility of provincial payments -- were undoubtedly very critical factors in enabling that project to go ahead, quite aside from government expenditures which were also part of the mixture. In view of the fact that these essential fiscal matters were ingredients in this project going ahead, I should like to ask the minister how he can possibly exclude these same advantages when he is projecting policy for future tar sands plants. According to National Energy Board forecasts, a plant is to be built approximately every two years. Even then we will be very, very short of resources. Would the minister tell the committee why he has not made this policy available, and made clear that it will be available, to constructors of tar sands plants in the future. Many years of lead time are required. The absence of clear rules now could easily set back future plants which the government has brought into its energy projections. My last question to the minister is about oil shortfalls in 1980 and 1985. Having included production from the oil sands in Alberta, the National Energy Board still projects a shortfall of 560,000 barrels a day by 1980, which will require the importation of some $2 billion of crude oil if we use a figure of $11 per barrel. In 1985 our shortfall will be 1.5 million barrels, and we are going to need something in the order of $5 billion to cover our energy deficiencies. If the minister is going to deal with this I would like him not only to deal with the balance of payments question resulting from our energy shortfall, but also to deal with it in the context of our invisibles and our trade. Could he tell us whether in fact we are truly facing a shortfall which I envisage in the area of $6 billion in 1980 in our international accounts, and something in the order of $10 billion in 1985? Would the minister comment as to whether he agrees with those figures and considers them serious in the context of Canada's economic future? Madam Chairman, we will try to get the figures on revenue for the hon. gentleman later on during the debate. I have them around here somewhere. I cannot give the hon. member's figures any more credence, one way or the other. His second question was whether I anticipate we will have to borrow against international monetary fund facilities available at the moment for short-term balance of payments difficulties. It may be that, at the time the hon. gentleman envisages, our exports will be stronger in other domains so that in the ordinary course of capital investment we will have sufficient funds to relieve us of these balance of payments difficulties. I really cannot foresee the situation he anticipates which would force us to borrow against that facility, but that might be the case in terms of short-term imbalances or crises from time to time. A number of nations have had to use the facilities of the International Monetary Fund, but at the moment I do not see this happening. In respect of Syncrude, the hon. gentleman's question was: having recognized the tax régime as it affected royalties before the two budgets of May 6 and November 18, why have we not recognized that the same régime ought to be accorded future Syncrude developments or tar sands operations? The Prime Minister as reinforced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources, said we would look at each project on its merits. That is not to say we do not consider the development of the tar sands as important, but we will want to look at cost factors at the time, at the value of market potential at the time, and at pricing factors, to see whether any additional tax incentives will be required. Madam Chairman, the minister did not fully answer a couple of my questions. On the matter of the tar sands, is the minister saying that the government will entertain favourably approaches in respect of prospective structures and plants? Is he saying that the government will in fact be prepared to negotiate conclusions to permit these plants to go ahead without federal funds being invested? Does he envisage the government making the incentives clear enough and sufficient enough that these plants can be built by the private sector without the injection of government funds? The other question the minister did not answer was whether the government considered the deficiencies of $6 billion to $10 billion in our international accounts as being serious to this country. While he mentioned frontier oil and reserves, the calculations I have given him were taken from a report of the National Energy Board released within the last few months. That board has allowed for future discoveries and growth in production of oil that is not yet found. It is pretty clear that we may very likely be facing this problem in the near term, that is, by 1980. If a discovery were made off the east coast of Canada in the course of the next six months, for example, that oil could not be delivered to Canadian markets by 1980. I would appreciate a few more explanations and comments as to why the minister rather optimistically looked at much better figures than these, and whether in fact the magnitude of this is considered serious. There is just no way I can forecast the balance of payments figures over that period because so many forces are at play, particularly in volatile international world monetary and trading terms. As for his question about the Syncrude type of operation, the government's decision in terms of tax incentives together with, or as an alternative to, equity participation will again have to await the examination of each proposition on its merits at that time. Madam Chairman, I should like to say a few words about these economic rents or royalties. To put it mildly, I think the government has gone about the situation of taxation on oil and royalties in a most unusual manner. This also applies to the government's taxation in respect of the mining industry, although we do not hear so much about that. This is the situation at a time when we need more oil, yet we apparently have a decrease in the number of drilling rigs from 240 to 140. This is at a time, as we have all read, when we are slowly dipping, and have been since 1966, into our reserves. In the "Policy Review and Outlook, 1975", the volume headed "Restructuring the Incentive System," Judith Maxwell of the C. D. Howe Research Institute had some very interesting things to say. At page 124 she states: The key element in designing an efficient system of collecting economic rent, as mentioned earlier, is to assure the producer that he can earn a normal profit on new investment, even if that new investment will involve higher unit production costs. Thus we must take a careful look at the impact of the new rent collection system installed by Ottawa and the provinces in the past year or so. She also states: --that despite the two-price system and higher provincial royalties, oil company revenues were significantly higher in June, 1974, than they were in September, 1973. However, the federal government seems to be determined to tax away a substantial portion of this revenue increase. On May 6, 1974, in what was clearly the opening move in a political battle with the provincial governments, Ottawa introduced measures that would have reduced deductions allowed in calculating the income of oil and mining companies and raise the effective tax rate. The measures were clearly incompatible with the existing provincial tax system but were never put to the test because they were defeated in parliament, along with the rest of the budget. The two levels of government are now negotiating a change in the taxation system for the oil industry. Nevertheless, it is interesting to examine what the impact of the May 6 proposals would have been, because they offer some interesting insights into the problems of designing a tax system that is effective in collecting economic rent. The federal taxes as proposed would have created a small loss on each barrel of oil produced if the domestic price for oil were increased. She goes on to state that this would certainly have had a perverse effect on the incentive to invest because no investor would put money into a new production facility if he expected to earn less profit per barrel as prices rise. She suggests that this would have an especially damaging effect because new production capacity will be badly needed within a few years. This really means that the government on May 6 was trying to extract far too much in economic rent from our Canadian resources. It will be difficult for a period of time to decide what that economic rent should be, particularly as oil prices go up and down, and probably will be artificially high. But they will probably remain essentially high. Canada will have to have a pretty flexible rent system to encourage new investment. At present we seem to be experiencing a significant cut back in oil which, in fact, is more plentiful here than anywhere in the world because Europe is cutting back on imports and the United States is threatening to do likewise. So there is lots of oil around. The Arabs have seen what is happening here and in Europe. They are concerned because they see that there is too much oil. Nevertheless, I think that it is an important factor in discussing what the price of oil in Canada will be, and I think it is significant to discuss what some people think that oil should cost and how it should relate to the national interest. According to the Globe and Mail of November 27 the Economic Council of Canada is reported to have addressed itself to this very problem. The Council said that whether the price of oil is $6.50 a barrel or even $8.50 a barrel, we cannot delay too long raising the price to somewhere near the world level. It has been the government's position that the price can be kept below the world level, but I doubt if that is possible for an extended period of time. The council suggests that, by and large, the domestic price of crude oil should rise in the next few years to the world level. I think the important words in that sentence are "the next few years". Certainly we are in a position to cushion Canadians against great price changes or great reductions in fuel. The council went on to point out what would happen if the price rise were delayed. It said this will certainly delay energy conserving technological change, and hasten the depletion of existing reserves. We read last week that since 1966 the supply of fuel oil has been smaller than the amount that was bought. The council said that if the price rise were delayed, this would delay the provision of supplements and alternatives, lower the potential volume of savings, and perhaps foster abortive development of energy-intensive industries dependent upon cheap oil and gas. This is significant in our decision on where to locate our ethylene plants, a debate that is now going on between Alberta and southern Ontario. The council went on to say that it is true that a higher oil price in Canada will lead to an increase in the cost of living in the short run but, in the immediate and long term, oil prices will have to rise to restrain consumption of our resources that are costly to replace, to stimulate production of additional supplies, and to generate the necessary savings. Furthermore, the Economic Council of Canada went on to say that the government should emphasize long term planning of urban development designed to economise on the use of energy. I might add that there is not much point in designing buildings with huge windows if the cost of heating them will be excessive, or if another design would make them better energy users. The council also warned the government not to try to extract too much economic rent through royalties, export taxes and other forms of corporate taxation, because this would tend to discourage exploration and development. The council went on to say that the amount of rent collected by governments must not be such as to discourage the adequate development of higher cost energy sources which will gradually replace conventional reserves, unless governments are prepared either to accept exceptionally steep price increases at a later date or to rely on imported supplies. This budget has made us realize that Canada will become a net importer of oil, perhaps by 1980, unless unexpected reserves are found in areas that are fairly adjacent to our settled population. We have heard about recent discoveries in the Mackenzie Valley, but as the president of one of the oil companies has said, it will be an expensive operation. It is quite likely that even if we have to do the exploration and development ourselves, or even together with the Americans, it will probably be oil at the world price in any case. The most serious threat to our oil sufficiency has been the struggle between the federal and provincial governments over royalties. This will cost Canadians in future a great deal in energy supplies. There is no doubt that had the oil been found in the central provinces of Canada, namely, Ontario and Quebec, we would have had a much more amicable settlement of this vexing problem. The amount of money that the minister will collect in his revenues is not all that great, and even if he gave it all back, he would not be giving back anything like what he is giving in personal income tax. So this is more a matter of principle rather than a matter of the amount of money involved. Perhaps not all the fault for this struggle lies with the federal government, but I believe that a good part of it can be credited to the intransigent attitude of the Prime Minister. I think that the government should be aware of the powerful forces that will inevitably create a political unit which would, of necessity, perhaps have to look south and not west. So I think that Ottawa should be much more careful in dealing with the provinces on this matter of resource taxation because suddenly oil and gas have become expensive and are worth much on world markets. The federal government and the provinces have rushed in madly to secure all the spoils. I think it can be said that as the cost of minerals falls on the world market, the government will adopt a new attitude with regard to these industries. I should like to speak for a few moments about the Syncrude project. It is obvious that the problem with Syncrude has arisen largely as a result of the governments's intervention in the free market. Atlantic Richfield withdrew from Syncrude, and Shell Explorers withdrew its partnership with Shell Canada in another plant, for a very practical reason. When the federal government indicated that it could not allow the export of oil from Canada, obviously the American companies had no other choice but to take their investment money elsewhere. This may be either a good or a bad thing, but it had to be a practical decision. Even the promise of exempting Syncrude's production from export rationing is no more than a hope. It is not clear whether the government has exempted Syncrude from export rationing, but even if it has, it is quite obvious that this will not be allowed. Atlantic Richfield is a company with refineries and distribution outlets, and it is short of crude oil. It invested in the Syncrude project in the hope of getting some of that crude. If the government will prevent it from exporting the Canadian crude, obviously this will not help its American position. It has therefore, invested heavily in Alaska oil, and also has recently given up its interest in Colorado Shales. The premier of B.C. a week ago told the NDP convention in Calgary that Canadians should do tar sands development themselves, but will they be willing to put up $10 billion over a period of years to bring on stream another four plants like Syncrude? In effect what happened to Syncrude was the principals waning ability to meet the cost of $1 million per day out of cash flow which is being progressively taxed away. Certainly this indicates that we could well have looked at excess profits tax if we wished to tax companies making excessive profits, rather than imposing restrictions. The federal government did not recognize this when imposing its pre-emptive taxes on the industry in the last federal budget. The concession by the government to allow the oil from the sands to be sold at world prices represents the first breach of the unrealistic price limit imposed last year. We suspect that the price of world oil will drop in this coming year to some extent. Indeed the Shah of Iran suggested that the present price of oil is the same in buying power as it was in 1948. Over this problem the government has entered into a war with the provinces. The minister withdrew slightly, but not enough yet to indicate what effect it will have on the industry. I think there should be much more consultation with the provincial governments as to what will be the relative share of each of the governments. I believe it is important that the provinces be assured of a substantial share in their resources because this is one of the few tax areas open to them. Madam Chairman, I thought we were talking about the Income Tax Act. I have a question that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. I want to bring this to the attention of the minister and this committee. I have just one question to ask as a result of this: would the minister be kind enough to let me know what amendments have been made to the various statutes to permit an independent member, unassociated with any political party, to have the same advantage as political parties and other members of this House of giving receipts for income tax purposes as a result of amendments made by virtue of the Election Expenses Act? I am not going to come to this House begging for fairness, but I am sure amongst hon. members there must be sufficient numbers who are fair, equitable and reasonable enough to make the necessary amendments to the necessary acts. One of the NDP members mentions candidates. You are not a candidate until an election is called, and I do not expect that, with the present government's majority, an election will be called for three or four years. I would just like to know if the minister could answer that question for me, or if he would let me have the necessary information. I sympathize with the hon. member's predicament, but the House voted on the Election Expenses Act and, in its wisdom, said that these provisions were open only to candidates of a registered party. The hon. gentleman has two alternatives: he can either join a party or start his own. I do not have an alternative. I cannot start a party because I am not recognized until the next election. I just ask if the minister would tell me what amendments are necessary to which statute so that presentations can be made? Tell him to join the Liberal Party. You can have him, John. I think the hon. member showed a lot of good sense last night. There's your chance, Jonesy. My difficulty is that I doubt whether the rules of relevancy would allow an amendment of the kind envisaged by the hon. member to be moved to this particular bill. The rules of relevancy affecting amendments to statutes are that it is not the statute itself to which the amendment should be relevant but the amending bill, and since there is nothing in this bill relating to election expenses I think the Chair, with the greatest respect, might have great difficulty in receiving the type of amendment the hon. gentleman has in mind, or in my trying to accommodate him even if I could determine a way to do so. Is the minister suggesting that I should figure a way myself? Perhaps I can. I just have a few problems in my mind concerning the approach that the minister and his government are taking on the subject of non deductibility of royalties haid to provincial treasuries, and particularly to provincial crown corporations. I ask the minister if he has considered his next move once he forces the provinces to take over into the provincial crowns the rights to the natural resources, and then the provincial crowns would contract out the services aspects of developing those resources. We didn't catch the last part of your question. I will ask it again, Madam Chairman. One of the problems I foresee in the approach that the minister and his government are taking toward the provinces, particularly with the non deductibility aspects of it as it applies to provincial crown corporations, is that the provinces now are perhaps going to remove their resources from their crown corporations, hold them within the provincial crown, and then contract out the various service aspects such as exploration, transportation, development, and refining to industries. The federal government will then have the normal taxation rights upon those service industries, and will have had removed from them any right of taxation to the value of the resource, as that resource will remain within the provincial crown. I am asking the minister whether he has thought this aspect out, this alternative that he is forcing the provinces to take and, if such an action were taken by the provinces, would the federal government then try to move in with legislation whereby it would tax the provincial treasuries? I will have to treat that question as hypothetical, and I really prefer not to deal with it unless and until the events described by the hon. gentleman occur. I want to say that I inadvertently misled the hon. member for Moncton on one feature of the rules of relevancy. He may be a little better off than I said at the start, on clauses 84 and 85. I apologize to him. As to the amendment he might want to put, I do not want to put myself in a position to help him draft it, but he will be able to put his question before the committee. Mr. Stanfield will help him. Madam Chairman, I want to get into the technicalities of clause 1 of the bill. The minister is purporting here to amend paragraph 6 of the act which deals with benefits as inclusions in income. Strangely enough this is amending an amendment that was made in 1973-74, and I am wondering what is the purpose. Why was the language of the section as it now stands found unsuitable? Were there unfortunate cases of rigidity? Which clause is this -- clause 1 (1) or 1 (2)? It is 1 (1) dealing with allowances that are payable. It is a new one. No, this is a replacement. It seems to me it has a reference to the ways and means motion. First of all it says "not in excess of reasonable amounts," and I want to know what is the determinant of a reasonable amount. I think this section has rather wide application. Unless I am wrong it could apply to a public servant on service abroad for Canada where there is no school in the language of the family. Say someone were on service in the Middle East and wanted to have a child educated in France or Switzerland, for instance, and this were one of the conditions of service. Is it a case that there will be an average tuition allowance, or is it to be the most expensive school university? I think the minister can explain that. Or what about Canadians serving in Canada? It seems to me this is motivated more toward service in Canada. I should like an explanation. Obviously there was some reason for it, and hopefully it will provide more flexibility for proper education of children in either official language. I find a certain rigidity in subparagraph (B) line 27 which says: How are we to give flexibility to this? The other one deals with premiums for group life insurance in excess of $25,000 which is subject to some adjustment. Perhaps we could have some explanation on the technicalities of these two provisions. Madam Chairman, I did deal with these points in some detail for the hon. member for York-Simcoe, but the hon. member for Edmonton West brought up one point that I did not deal with and that is "reasonable amount". Because of the variety of circumstances one encounters, even within Canada, the amendment is primarily directed to help those families -- for instance English-speaking Canadians in a predominantly French-speaking environment, or vice-versa -- to accept from their employers, within their contract of employment, payment to cover the schooling of children in the principal language of the family and not have that as a taxable benefit. Because of the variety of circumstances envisaged, one has to leave it to that traditional administrative discretionary term called "reasonable amount". The minister will also appreciate the limitations of (A) and (B) which may introduce a little difficulty. Say someone from the province of Quebec were transferred to Calgary and wanted his children to remain in school in Quebec, what would happen if there happened to be a school which taught French alone in the city of Edmonton? There are certainly some here in Ottawa. The geographical limitation in (B) creates a problem. I would hope that the Department of National Revenue would be as flexible as possible in its interpretation, because otherwise the purpose of the amendment might be defeated. Madam Chairman, what the hon. member says here, or I say, does not bind the court, but I would hope that the Department of National Revenue would take note of his remarks, which I support. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order. The House met at 2 p.m. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a motion under Standing Order 43. The worsening conditions of Hong Kong veterans and recent increases in the deaths of those veterans confirms the need for action on recommendations of studies made over the years to increase pensionable disabilities, particularly for those forced out of the labour market. I therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon): That the House do order that the minister make a statement on motions within seven days to advise what action has been taken as a result of recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on October 22, 1974, on the matter of Hong Kong veterans who are being forced out of the labour market because of their conditions. The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, which requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be debated. Is there unanimous consent? Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. It arises from a recent decision by the Department of National Defence to mothball four destroyers. In view of the huge expense involved in such operations and the resultant pre-empting of any possible productivity from these ships, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for unanimous consent, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), to move the following motion: That this House urges the government to make an immediate offer to the General Labour and Trades Group at least equal to the level of wages paid by municipalities, so that social justice will be enjoyed by those who work for the people of Canada. Order, please. Even contemplating my earlier commitment that in matters of this sort which are of urgent and pressing necessity I would be prepared at all times to give every hon. member the benefit of the doubt in that regard, and while I accept the fact that the question the hon. member has put forward is a matter of serious concern, I did not hear him attempt to develop any argument with regard to its urgency. I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is Your Honour not aware of the fact that this motion relates to a strike situation which could develop at midnight tonight? Surely the hon. member cannot expect the Chair to take notice of circumstances which were neither explained nor exposed nor in any way referred to in the hon. member's remarks. Agreed. No. Agreed. No. Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in both official languages, the text of certain international agreements in force for Canada. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who is very much in the minds of all of us today in view of the strike of a good many public servants. I should like to ask the minister whether the delay in reporting some progress in his efforts to achieve consensus among the principal elements of the economy is because he now accepts the view that has been expressed by one of the economic advisers to the Prime Minister that it is too late now for a program of co-operative restraint to be effective. No, I do not accept that view, Mr. Speaker. Wait till Pierre hears about that. A supplementary question. Perhaps the minister could give us a revised date as to when we could expect a progress report. He might also indicate whether it is his view and the view of the government that the acceptance of a program of co-operative restraint would make it substantially easier for the Minister of Finance to encourage the expansion of employment in the economy. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is talking in terms of the traditional, classic economic trade-off between inflation and unemployment or employment, and I am not sure that in the current circumstances that necessarily applies. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, for further clarification may I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is the view of the government that fear of stimulating inflation under current conditions is not a reason for any slowness on the part of the minister in injecting more stimulation into the economy? In other words, is it the view of the minister that there is no particular reason today to be concerned about accelerating inflation as a result of efforts to expand the economy? Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that any economic policy of the government approved by parliament should recognize not only the problem of inflation but the problem of slow growth and the problem of energy conservation, three areas-- What about the weather? --that are very difficult to reconcile, in economic terms. So at the moment I would not accept the hon. gentleman's emphasis toward any one of those three problems. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did well to read the entire statement; but I want to say to him, without accepting the tone of his preamble, that if I were satisfied with the performance of the Canadian economy I would not be any more use in this particular job. Come over to the Conservative side. Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. We may not have the chance to put many more supplementaries to him. Hear, hear! In view of the Prime Minister's and the Minister of Finance's bit of puffery a few weeks ago to the effect that American authorities had taken Liberal government leads in setting U.S. economic policy, and in view of the minister's current statements that our budgetary stance in November was based on the anticipation of a better performing economy in the United States and that our unemployment is not due to-- Order, please. With all due respect, it seems to me that the preamble has outreached the question. I wonder if the hon. member would put his supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government given consideration to the intent of the motion I moved earlier this afternoon, notice of which I gave the Prime Minister about two weeks ago, regarding Valentyn Moroz? The motion was suggested to me by people in many parts of Canada belonging to all political parties. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear precisely the motion moved by my hon. friend, but I will examine it and give it consideration. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have efforts recently been made by representatives of the Canadian government in the Soviet Union to ascertain the state of health of Valentyn Moroz? If so, what information can the minister give the House on this matter? That is the latest information I have and I have no reason to believe it has fallen out of date. A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that information being received by Canadians who are interested in this matter is different from the information given to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by the Soviet ambassador, have requests been made of the Soviet government, or will they be made, for representatives of the Canadian government stationed in the Soviet Union to visit Valentyn Moroz so that they can report directly on the state of his health on the basis of what they see? Mr. Speaker, I have not agreed to such a move as in the circumstances I think it would very likely be counterproductive. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister said he could not give a figure for unemployment because there are too many variables at play in the figure, yet at the same time he said the government does have estimates now of expected unemployment for the coming year. Will the minister now clarify for this House whether his recent budget was prepared using estimates of projected unemployment, or was it prepared without any estimate of unemployment rates for this year? Mr. Speaker, we took all the economic factors into consideration. Mr. Speaker, the minister owes it to this House to either answer questions or to absolutely refuse. Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member, the minister owes no such obligation to the House. With respect, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not have to answer, but if he does he ought to give us an answer. Oh, oh! Can the minister advise whether present estimates of unemployment are higher or lower than estimates available to the government when the budget was introduced in November? Mr. Speaker, I said to the House that because of the continued deterioration of the American economy, with its effects on our exports, our forecast for growth of employment would have to be shaded down. I also said to the hon. member's leader that I never hazarded a prediction on unemployment because of the variable factors at play, including participation rates. Answer the question. It is good of the hon. member to drop in on his tour across the country, but I am answering his question as best I can. Hear, hear! When someone does not have an answer, they try to avoid the question. Will the minister do us the courtesy of answering the question I put to him? That last retort was not an answer to any of the questions put to the minister in the last several days. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Hear, hear! I would only comment that we are just trying to keep the Post Office running. Could the Postmaster General confirm or deny the report of an assault on a postal supervisor in the Montreal office yesterday which sent the gentleman to hospital? Could the minister also indicate what action he is taking to deal with these sporadic outbreaks of violence on the part of a small number of employees, which is causing serious damage to the image of the bulk of the loyal employees? Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is entitled to a full answer. He shares the same belief as I do, that the overwhelming number of postal workers in this country are law-abiding citizens who are quite prepared to do a decent day's work for a decent day's pay provided they are recognized as people and not as digits. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there is a small nucleus of problem makers in the Post Office. Yesterday an employee did create a certain amount of violence, hitting one of the supervisors and injuring him quite grievously. Obviously, that person was immediately suspended. I am considered a fair friend of labour and I think that the Post Office employees of this country deserve to be able to render an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I will not tolerate violence in the Post Office as long as I am Postmaster General, even if it creates illegal strikes in certain parts of the country. Hear, hear! In the interests of improving the efficiency of the Post Office Department, could the Postmaster General indicate whether there is any relationship between what appears to be a continuing boycott of the postal code and the activity of this small number of employees to whom he referred? In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I have to agree that there is some suggestion, not of a boycott but of a genuine concern about automation by some responsible employees. There is also a very tiny group which is promoting the boycotting of the code in order to destroy the system. Their fellow employees have little use for them. That group shall not succeed. With 10 per cent unemployment the working conditions in the Post Office, although far from perfect, are not that onerous that I am sure there are thousands of Canadians who would be glad to take their place. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Has the minister instructed the National Parole Board to review all cases involving people jailed on cannabis convictions in spite of the fact that Bill S-19 has not yet been presented to this House? No, Mr. Speaker. This will be done once the bill is passed. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. I would like some clarification of his answer. Does the statement made today both inside and outside the House in reference to parole and drug convictions apply to all persons convicted of possession of marijuana or hashish, possession for the purpose of trafficking and unlawfully importing marijuana? You are reading. Will the hon. member for St. Boniface be quiet for a moment while I ask this important question. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said the hon. member could read better than he could speak. That is all. I will put my question again in case the minister did not hear it because of the interruption by the hon. member for St. Boniface. He is one of those noisemaker you have at New Year's. This was an important statement. My question is, does the statement made outside the House today by the Solicitor General, with reference to drug convictions of people who are incarcerated at the present time or who will be incarcerated, apply to possession of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and the unlawful importation of marijuana; and does it apply to marijuana and hashish alone? When the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced the tabling of the bill on cannabis which is now in the Senate, he mentioned there would be a review of the cases of those in penitentiaries whose offences were in the category for which penalties would be reduced under the new bill. He said their cases would be reviewed by the Parole Board; that they would be given special attention in view of the lighter sentences which might be made applicable under new legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. During last year's period of immigration amnesty or normalization, did the Canadian government approve for citizenship any individual reported to the government by the Jewish Documentation Centre in Vienna as being Nazi war criminals resident in Canada? Not to my knowledge. Can the minister tell us what the government is doing, if anything, with the information supplied over a number of years by Simon Wiesenthal, one of those who tracked down Adolph Eichmann, that some 15 Nazi war criminals still wanted in connection with atrocities are resident in this country? I am not aware of such information coming to my attention. I will look into the matter. I do not know how far back into the far distant past we should go in these matters, but I will certainly review the hon. member's comments. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from reports in the press this morning that a study done for the Alberta government shows that the cost of Syncrude will be at least $2,900 million, representing a 50 per cent increase in the last nine days. The report points out that the original estimate omitted to include provision for certain interest payments, housing costs and environmental factors. Can the minister tell us whether the government is still committed to pay 15 per cent of the capital costs which would amount, if this estimate is correct, to about $450 million? The 15 per cent figure is correct. I should advise the hon. member that certain of the elements referred to, particularly the cost of housing, are not our obligation at all. Was the minister aware of this study regarding the cost of Syncrude before the deal was made in Winnipeg nine or ten days ago and, if he was, can he tell us why the government did not set up an independent investigation of some sort? I would have to check with my officials to determine whether these particular figures were provided to them. I would be glad to do so and report. Do I take it that the 15 per cent investment in terms of equity and capital cost is open-ended? For example, if the cost of the project should rise $4 million or $5 million is the government still committed to 15 per cent? After all, the cost estimate has gone up by 50 per cent in the last ten days. I think the hon. member is misleading the House by using those terms. We are a 15 per cent partner in the project and, obviously, if there is any substantial cost overrun, not only we but the partners interested in the other 85 per cent will want to review the situation. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the plague of killings which is going on against police officers and other officers of that kind. What are the extenuating circunstances which cause the governor in council to grant reprieves in such cases? Order, please. With all due respect to the right hon. gentleman and to the minister who may wish to reply, it seems to me this question calls for an answer with respect to general policy as well as for an answer which might deal with hypothetical situations and might, indeed, be a lengthy answer. I do not question the right to seek this information, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to seek it during the short question period. This might be a short question period, but life imprisonment is an awfully long sentence for those who have been denied the execution to which they have been sentenced. Oh, oh! All I am seeking is a simple answer to my question in respect of cases where there have been commutations and there has been no recommendation for mercy and where, according to law, the death sentence applies. I know from experience there are often extenuating circumstances which generally bring about commutation: I think there are three. Will the minister name those that apply today? In the only case in which I have been involved so far there was a recommendation for mercy. No doubt there will be some cases before us in the near future, but I cannot tell the right hon. gentleman right now what all the criteria will be in considering those cases. In fact, I do not know at this time whether there are recommendations for mercy or not. What was the case in which there was a recommendation for mercy? The minister, having had only one, will remember it. I said there was a recommendation for mercy in that case. If I understood the right hon. gentleman correctly, he wanted to know what were the criteria in cases where there was no recommendation for mercy. I am trying to find out the name of the case in which there was a recommendation for mercy in respect of the homicide of a police officer. I have answered that question, Mr. Speaker. I have dealt with one case where a man killed a police officer and there was a recommendation for mercy. That was the only case which came before us. Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he tell the House whether he is aware of the problem which hospital staff recruiting poses, especially in the Lower St. Lawrence region, where 26 nursery attendants at Rimouski have refused to go back to work because they consider there are not enough of them to ensure the children proper care? Can he tell the House what steps he intends to take to facilitate qualified hospital nursing staff recruiting, and also whether he has looked into the possibility of adopting an isolation bonus to encourage hospital staff and doctors to accept employment in areas located far from major centres? Mr. Speaker, thanks to the newspapers, I am aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. member, but that whole question falls under provincial administration which has jurisdiction in that field. Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. It relates to the question I asked him on February 10 dealing with the impending strike of GLT'S in the public service. Could the minister let us have an updated report on the present situation and tell us whether he is planning any intervention at the eleventh hour? Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I met with the liberal members from the Maritimes, who made representations to me on that subject. I am pleased to report to the House that in ten minutes the negotiations will resume between the parties. We hope to come to a settlement before the strike begins. Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State which arises from the airing by the CBC of the program "Ten Lost Years". Some have be so uncharitable as to suggest that somebody lost his marbles in presenting that program. Is it the intention of the government to ask the president of the CBC to appear before the appropriate committee of the House of Commons to explain why Canadian culture is being directed along such permissive lines rather than in the opposite direction? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in this House longer than I have and knows perfectly well that when the estimates of the corporation are before the committee, the president of the CBC will be there. If the hon. member has any views about this program, he should express them then. Mr. Speaker, then I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to instruct the CBC to label its programs as fit for family viewing, or vulgar. If they are to be labelled as vulgar, perhaps they should be presented at three o'clock in the morning, if at all. Does the government intend to take a "hands off" policy, or perhaps adopt a line similar to that taken by the NDP government of the province of Saskatchewan where a directive was sent by the government to school teachers to instruct their students not to view such vulgar programs? Mr. Speaker, on the general question of the relationship between the corporation and the government, it has been a long established principle, one which I always felt was shared by the official opposition, that the government should not instruct the corporation. Mr. Speaker, may I, then, direct a final supplementary question to the Minister of Justice? I should like to ask whether his department would consider abortion on demand to be a perfectly legal and proper subject for the CBC to have a camera present and televise the operation for public viewing. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. Is it the intention of the government or the minister to discuss with the CRTC the possibility of formulating a code which would govern the standards of television programs in Canada and prevent the exploitation of sex and violence? Mr. Speaker, that is a proposal I would be glad to consider, but there is no such plan at the present time. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question, and would make the observation that supplementaries which follow two or three questions later haven't a hell of a lot of value. I wonder if I could ask-- Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the minister said in this House last February 4 that the government had not yet decided what the strategy of our country would be at the current talks of the Tokyo Round, can he now tell the House how his government and his department have prepared for that important international forum and what cards they are going to play? Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation, headed by Mr. Rodney de C Gray, is in Geneva at the present time. They are meeting with the trade negotiating committee of the various participating nations. During this period of time, say over the next few days, they hope to sort out the committees and the timetable of events. Therefore, I will be in a better position to report later, when those meetings have been completed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary. In view of the particular situation of textiles at the present time, is the minister prepared to entertain for discussions about the Tokyo Round the request made on February 5 by the CSD president that dumping must again be defined, since some countries are selling on the Canadian market at less than the world prices? Mr. Speaker, I think that particular representation has already been noted. If it has not, I will convey it to the negotiating committee. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if it is the policy of his department to attempt to decrease the wage disparity between public service employees in Atlantic Canada and public service employees in other areas of the country? Mr. Speaker, as an employer I will say that the answer is no. We have a comparability policy governing our employees' salaries within their provinces. This problem has been dealt with by the conciliator, Mr. Hart. He has made interesting recommendations in this regard. Could the Minister of Labour say when he expects to receive the report from Dr. Hall? Mr. Speaker, my latest information is that Dr. Hall is meeting this month and hopes to conclude his hearings and make his report some time in March, I believe, so it will not be for some time yet. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? Pending the receipt of the report from Dr. Hall, could the Minister of Transport say whether the Canadian National Railways will in 1975 be escalating the pensions of those employees who are already retired and, if so, will that escalation be the full amount of the rise in the cost of living? Mr. Speaker, I think that the unions are now negotiating with the railways and that it falls to them first to try to obtain a fair settlement. If they do not, perhaps the Minister of Labour will have to intervene. If I become involved, I might say I have a lot of sympathy in respect of their demands as far as pensions are concerned. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that perhaps the minister did not understand my question. The question of escalating the pensions of those already retired is not a subject of collective bargaining, and that is my reason for asking the minister whether the Canadian National will, as it has done during the last few years, provide an escalation in 1975, and this time will it be at least equal to the rise in the cost of living? Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman knows a lot about labour negotiations. I also know, from my experience -- and probably this has been the experience of many others -- in the CLC that the union does negotiate on behalf of those who are retired, so as to obtain justice. Perhaps they have opted not to do so, but I am not aware of this. If they have opted not to do so, then this would have to be done either through the department of Labour or the Department of Transport. Ten o'clock. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister regarding a conflict of interest which I spoke of earlier today. Will the Prime Minister put the national parks under the jurisdiction of another minister, because surely there is a conflict of interest when the minister responsible for Indian Affairs and Northern Development wishes to withdraw park land from a national park that is protected under section 4 of the act respecting national parks? Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I do not see what conflict of interest is involved, but I will study the question. In view of the concern among employees of the Department of Manpower and Immigration caused by the possible implementation of the cluster program in British Columbia, will the minister assure the House that he will report the results of his study on the reorganization of Manpower and Immigration to the House, when it is completed on April 1, 1975? Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of internal organization and administration. I would like to follow the hon. member's suggestion, but I want to examine the implications of it first. Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State responsible for fisheries. I wonder if the minister intends to go ahead with the policy he has already made public respecting the delivery of salmon fishing permits within designated zones only, thereby prohibiting permit holders from fishing wherever they please in salmon-rich zones. Mr. Speaker, I shall check the exact gist of the question the hon. member has just asked. Unless I am mistaken, he is enquiring about the possible delivery of permits for special zones. This suggestion had already been made, but this is something on which a final decision is still pending. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which concerns the new, increased quota system agreed to by ICNAF with respect to the capelin fishery in our waters. Can the minister tell the House whether Canada took a position against increasing the quota, and is he satisfied that sufficient data and research information exist to justify increasing the quota of this important fish? Mr. Speaker, our position has been that the absolute quota should have been slightly lower than agreed to. On the other hand, we know that some of the nations which have received part of this quota will not fish all of it, so in the last analysis we would have got what we wanted. As for the scientific evaluation, I regret to say that I am never satisfied that our own scientific evaluation is sufficiently funded, but I believe that in this instance we have a fairly reliable case. Could the minister tell the House whether the countries fishing for capelin last year violated the ICNAF agreement with respect to quotas and, if so, would he name the countries? I will have to refresh my memory, but I will be glad to report to the hon. member soon. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Mr. Speaker, there has been no change since the statement that I made and the statement that I tabled. Members of the department are to be available on a responsive basis, when requested, to supply factual information, but are to avoid getting into political or policy discussions about it. As to the motion about the parliamentary committee, I hope to be able to place it before the House in the not too distant future. As hon. members know, there have been conversations about that. I do not think that in the short time available in the question period I could elaborate on it, but I will be glad to do so on the motion that will be put about the committee. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. In view of the debate that is to take place with respect to the green paper on immigration and the integration of immigrants into Canadian society, as well as the regulations that are proposed with regard to obtaining citizenship -- which will obviously affect the acceptance of immigrants by Canadians -- could the minister indicate whether the government has any intention to withhold the debate on and the passage of Bill C-20 which amends the regulations respecting the rights of citizenship until such time as the green paper has been tabled and the immigration bill put before the House? No, Mr. Speaker; I hope that the House will dispose of other business and get to this bill. I think it would be very useful to have a discussion going on in the House at the same time as the debate is going on regarding immigration, because -- and here I agree with the hon. member -- they are closely related and I think it would help to offset any idea that our immigration policy is directed against any particular group. Mr. Speaker, I am not running for anything, either. Why not? My supplementary question to the minister is, why is the green paper in such short supply when this is obviously an issue on which parliament and the government will want to have a large measure of discussion? When will the supporting research papers be published? It is my understanding that only 5,000 copies of the green paper have been printed, when there might well have been 25,000 or 30,000. Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I based my decision about quantities on the advice from Information Canada. Oh, oh! A stupid organization. The decision was made to print 5,000 English and 3,000 French copies. Obviously, events have overtaken us and copies are being bought up fast. There will be a second printing which we hope will be available as quickly as possible. I might add, for the information of hon. members, that a condensed version is being printed now. It is available in offset form to members who wish it, on a free issue basis, and it will be available in large quantities on a responsive basis within the next five to ten days. And the answer to the second part of the question? The supporting studies are awaiting French translation and will be available within ten days, I believe. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the House leader a question with respect to the business of the House for the balance of today, tomorrow and perhaps next week? Mr. Speaker, the House is still in committee of the whole on Bill C-49. Because of the urgency of this matter and notwithstanding the urgency of many other items on the order paper, we shall continue in committee of the whole until we dispose of this bill. However, on Monday I understand that the hon. member for St. John's East will call his motion on the Canadian Egg Marketing Board committee report. After Bill C-49 has been disposed of in committee of the whole we will turn to Bill C-46, the housing bill, which is also very urgent. I hope all members of the House realize that there is a great deal of public pressure upon parliament to act with some vigour, and dispatch both with respect to the bill of the Minister of Finance and to the housing bill. Next Thursday, February 20, will be an allotted day. Mr. Speaker, May I ask the President of the Privy Council two questions regarding the business of the House. Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-48 it had been my hope, which I have had to abandon, that we might have got through the committee of the whole stage by this evening, but I see no prospect of that. If that were to happen, of course we would take the railway bill immediately and get it through because there has been agreement among all parties in the House that there would be at most five speakers. However, I cannot put it on the agenda until there is greater progress on Bill C-49. As to the reference to the committee, tonight I will put down a notice of a reference of the NORAD question to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and which would also give the committee an opportunity of hearing reports from Canadian delegations to various international organizations. Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence was at one time a useful and prestigious institution; however, it has fallen on evil days and has not met since October. Both the opposition parties have indicated to the President of the Privy Council that they would like to discuss not only the question of NORAD, which admittedly is important, but also the question of the administration of CIDA, which is also important. Hear, hear! My point of order turns at this stage into a plea that the motion we shall have will include both subjects, so that the committee can decide how to arrange its own business and deal with both of these items. Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order referring to the business of the House, I wonder whether the government house leader might be able to indicate to the House when the government will be bringing forward enabling legislation which will allow the government to make regulations with respect to protecting privacy and information stored in federal data banks. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point made by the hon. member for Greenwood just a few moments ago, the suggestion he made would be perfectly agreeable to us. I think perhaps it is a good one. I would ask the government house leader to consider the question with his colleagues, and perhaps some arrangement can be made with respect to that. Mr. Speaker, may I remind the House that CIDA estimates will be before the House in the future. That's too late. What are you hiding? It is not my intention to put forward in the suggested motion a reference of this kind. Indeed, if I may say to the hon. members opposite, none of the questions I had expected they might have addressed to my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is quite ready to answer them, have been presented. All we had were Standing Order 43 motions. What are you hiding? Order, please. Orders of the day. The leader of the Opposition. On Clause 1. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the attention of the Minister of Finance for a minute. I will only be a minute on clause 1 of the bill. It is not my intention to cause any delay in moving the bill through the House, but I want to say in all seriousness to the minister that with the economic problems which face the country, I think the opposition is entitled to serious answers to serious questions put to him. Hear, hear! For that reason I will make a few comments on clause 1 of this bill. I asked the minister, for example, a question relating to the matter of the appropriate level of income taxation. I asked the minister this afternoon when we will get a progress report regarding his efforts to achieve a consensus. I received no answer at all. I asked the minister whether the acceptance of his consensus, whatever it may be, by the principal elements of the economy would make it easier for him to pursue policies to encourage the expansion of our economy and, therefore, employment. He said that he did not necessarily accept the trade-off between employment and inflation in the circumstances we find ourselves in today. What does that mean? If it was intended as a serious response to a serious question, there is only one interpretation I can put on that, and that is that in the present circumstances in our economy the minister did not feel that expansion would be any inflationary threat. But when I sought clarification as to whether the minister's position is that in the present circumstances further stimulation of the economy does not constitute any aggravation to inflationary pressures, I think he said that one had to pay attention to all three. That is no answer at all. I say simply in all seriousness that, in view of the serious conditions confronting this country, what is by his own admission the inappropriateness of his budget to conditions which now confront him -- and I sympathize with him in that -- the inadequacy of his budget, and in view of the emphasis he has put from time to time upon the role that this seeking of a consensus has to play in our economy, I think that we are entitled to be treated seriously by the Minister of Finance. Hear, hear! The minister may think it is satisfactory to make a joke with the hon. member for Vancouver in order to get himself off the hook. I just want to tell him that I do not think that bothers the hon. member in question very much. It may amuse my hon. friends opposite, but it is not an answer, and I would like the minister to tell us the answer in a moment. He can do it in one minute. He can tell us when we are going to get a progress report with regard to consensus. He can tell us quite frankly whether the acceptance of his consensus suggestion does have a bearing on what policy he may adopt with regard to stimulation. He can tell us also, for example, whether he is suggesting a package to the principal elements of the economy. For example, is he saying to business that we are concerned about inflation, we are concerned about the rate of growth of the economy, we are concerned about unemployment, we would like to approach all these together, and if we could get a consensus with regard to restraint, then we could do thus and thus with regard to expansion and with regard to employment? These are very simple, elementary but important propositions for us to know and for the country to know, and I think that before the minister asks us to proceed further with the bill, he can answer these few simple questions in just a couple of minutes. Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is now addressing the committee as Leader of the Opposition, and in that capacity I am going to respond to him in the tone in which he addressed those remarks, which I agree are serious. I might just say that he has been a member of the House of Commons a good many years and has been in the legislature of a sovereign province before that for some time. He knows there are two kinds of questions. A question that is put in the tone of sincerely seeking an answer on a serious subject gets an answer in the same tone. When a question is put in a tone to score debating points, then I feel it is open to me to defend myself and the party I represent in the same tone. I follow that procedure in trying to seize the mood of the House as best I can. Since he put these questions to me in a tone that demands an answer, because of the position he holds in the House and the country and the seriousness of the questions, I am going to deal with them in that fashion. The consensus process brings a lot of people together from various aspects of the economy. Part of the delay in maturing this process has resulted from the fact that we have not been able, on every occasion, to get on a specific committee the ministers required and the men and women from the labour community, or the part of the business community involved, or consumers and so on. Sometimes they were not available on the dates we had hoped. I am not the only minister involved. I am trying to deal with as many meetings as I can within the restraints imposed upon me. I have not been able to do so within recent weeks because of my prior duties in this House. With me in the process is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Labour, and on other occasions ministers whose portfolios or regional representation dictate that they should be included. I cannot give the hon. gentleman or the committee a precise date or target when I will be able to tell the House whether this evolving consensus process has worked. The reason I did not present a package to the committee now is that I wanted it to evolve, if possible, and not be imposed by the government. I believe that one of the mistakes of the 1969-70 exercise was that in the minds of labour a deal was made between business and government, and labour was just presented with a fait accompli . I want to see something evolve with the legitimate interest of each sector of the economy being properly represented in a way that makes it a mutual understanding and co-operative arrangement -- a consensus. On the second main question, that of the stimulus that is appropriate for the economy at the moment, I have said to the hon. gentleman and to his colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, that although both we and the American administration underestimated the depth of the current United States recession, there were two factors currently in play that I wanted to analyse before I decided whether to recommend to the government, and thereafter to parliament, that further stimulation ought to be injected into the economy. First of all it is not clear that the final package of economic measures presented by the President of the United States to Congress is going to be passed by the Congress, or what compromises are going to be worked out between the administration and Congress -- what the inter-relation is going to be between the four factors at play in economic terms. The difficulty lies in trying to reconcile these forces. On the one hand the president is recommending $16 billion stimulus by way of tax cuts, personal and corporate, and on the other hand, is taking virtually $30 billion out of the economy in his energy measures. He has to get that back into the economy by reason of 1975 tax cuts. It is because of these forces at play that I want to gauge how it is progressing before I decide, because of the effect on Canadian exports, what our response should be. The second reason is that our own stimulus in the amount of $3 billion, which in American terms you multiply by about 12 -- the ratio of the American to the Canadian economy -- which is about a $36 billion stimulus in American terms, is taking place now, contrary to the American experience, because of the tax reductions for the 1974 and 1975 years that are being reflected in current payroll deductions. I want to see just how these two factors are working. The hon. gentleman asked what effect this would have on inflation. I am not operating on the trade-off principle and I think the hon. gentleman recognizes that, but if the recovery in the American and Canadian economies, particularly the American, is coming in the third or fourth quarter, then I want to gauge just what stimulus is appropriate now because of the time lags involved and whether that stimulus, instead of aiding the unemployment problem which is the first issue on my mind, would only compound the inflationary forces in the third and fourth quarters of 1975. These are the issues at play, and before deciding I want to analyse them on the best factual and forecasting basis I can. I have tried to be as realistic with the country and the House as I could from time to time. I think it is important not to underrate the seriousness of the situation and, on the other hand, I think it is important not to exaggerate it. I read stories in the press that we are experiencing the worst unemployment since the depression. That does not happen to be so. First of all, we have no comparable figures for the depression years. The present labour force statistics series only began in 1953, and the labour force is very much higher than it has ever been before. In reply to an earlier question put by the hon. member for York-Simcoe I said that one million new jobs had been found for Canadians in the last three years. Our labour force is the highest ever; employment is at record levels, and what is relevant is the unemployment rate. It is by no means the highest since the 1930s; it is by no means satisfactory, but the actual rate for January, 1975, is 8.4 per cent, seasonally adjusted to 6.7 per cent. That is the highest since 1962 when it was 8.5 per cent. In the preceeding four years it was above 8.4 per cent; in 1961, 10.8 per cent; in 1960, 8.8 per cent; in 1959, 9.5 per cent and in 1958, 5.7 per cent. The Tories-- I am not trying to make that point at all. The hon. members in the New Democratic Party can draw whatever conclusions they want. All I am saying is that we have to put this situation in its proper perspective. I think it is important for Canadians to be realistics; I think it is also important that we do not panic. That is the best answer I can give to the hon. gentleman. I thank the Minister of Finance for his response. His reference to figures for the 1960s remind one that the difference between that situation and this is that he is confronted with a problem not only of substantial unemployment -- I do not say it is the worst since the depression -- a problem of actual substantial unemployment and the threat of very substantial unemployment, and he is also involved in a very high rate of inflation. In the sixties inflation was not a problem at all. I am very interested in finding out what role the consensus approach of the minister is playing in all this. I am prepared to accept what he says about the complexity of the present circumstances, the number of factors that have to be weighed and examined to determine the appropriate fiscal stance that should be taken, but I had assumed that the consensus was somehow related to a fight against inflation. If I am wrong, I should like the minister to say so. I therefore assume that if the minister were successful in achieving a consensus, the result might be important in terms of lessening the rate of inflation, and also in terms of freeing the minister's options for the expansion of the economy. If the minister achieves a consensus among the principal elements of the economy, does he not feel that he will have taken an important step forward in fighting inflation? Also, I suggest he will feel that by so doing he has established the framework under which it will be easier for him to create more jobs in the country. I am putting the question in its simplest terms. Mr. Chairman, I can accept that argument partially. The consensus, if it were to evolve, would not of course be the sole determining factor. What must be achieved is this: there must be some understanding and moderation on the part of large groups within the economy in their claims against the economy; also there must be a moderate fiscal, monetary, exchange and trade policy which is co-ordinated with other policies. Obviously, this would give us more manoeuvreability. That is all I am asking. If we could achieve that consensus, we should have more manoeuvreability. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question, after which I will leave the minister in peace for the afternoon. Is the minister, along with his colleagues, pointing out to the principal sectors of the economy, that is, business, labour and others, that if they will accept a reasonable policy of restraint he will be freed in his options and be in a much better position not only to deal with inflation but to see to it that business is reasonably good this year? Is the minister pointing these facts out which are part of the package? Mr. Chairman, if the matter is put in those terms, in terms of a trade-off, I foresee some problem. That is why I answered the hon. gentleman the way I did earlier. I would not want the working men and women of this country to feel that I am trading off their ability to keep pace with the economy, and I am speaking in terms of prices, against their job security. The problem put in those terms, is a bit too stark in economic terms, and it is not the way I like to proceed in human terms. Following my leader's questions, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister another question. How long will this policy analysis last? Will it be one week, one month, half a year, or how long? When does he think he will have sufficient information in order to permit the government to make a new move, bearing in mind that time may be of the essence? Mr. Chairman, that will be a question of judgment. Mr. Chairman, whose judgment? My judgment and the government's and, if necessary, I will put myself in the hands of parliament. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister can he explain, briefly, how the November budget differs from the May budget in its treatment of resource industries? I understand that the federal government says that it intends to leave more money in the hands of natural resource producers, and that it will provide better treatment with regard to exploration expenses. I have studied the budget, and I hope my conclusions about it are wrong. In the new budget, are exploration expenses to be more generously treated? Has the government withdrawn taxing provisions in other areas as well? It seems to me that there is an additional difference as between the May and November budgets. The government, according to my understanding, wishes to define lease rentals and bonuses paid to provinces in right of the Crown for the acquisition of petroleum leases as royalties, which are to be non-deductible. On the one hand the government is being more generous with exploration expenses; on the other hand it is taking away that which it has given by classifying bonus payments and lease rentals as royalties. I directed a question to the minister about this matter after the budget was introduced, and he said he was not then prepared to answer because the matter was to technical. Can the minister answer my question now in the committee of the whole? Mr. Chairman, the drawback in the federal position as between the May 6 and November 18 budgets was twofold. First we restored the 100 per cent deductibility, that is to say, the one year write-off provision for exploration expenses, both for mining and petroleum. Second, in respect of petroleum and natural gas, we reduced the federal tax level by increasing the provincial abatement by lowering federal tax down from 30 to 25 points. In other words we gave the provinces half the tax take on the 50 per cent rate. These two measures together represented a return to the table of about $185 million in the 1975 calendar year, and thus succeedingly greater amounts in subsequent years. Can the minister tell us how much land acquisition costs being treated as royalties, and being therefore non-deductible will cost the industry? I am speaking of bonuses which are being paid, and of the payment of lease rentals while companies are holding land for development. We do not have the figures at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but there was no effective set-off. In other words the industry received a good deal back on the table; and when you consider the subsequent Alberta moves you will see that a good deal of additional money was put back on the table. Mr. Chairman, that is not satisfactory. I thought the minister had a computer beside him, so to speak, and could furnish answers immediately. The minister said that $185 million had been put back on the table for the industry. This amount will be reduced because the government is to treat land acquisition costs as royalties, which are to be non-deductible; therefore the amount put back on the table will be less than $185 million. This amount is fairly small in comparison with the $500 million which Alberta has made available. I see the minister shaking his head. I should like the minister, at some stage, to compare what the government did with what the province did. I shall be interested in knowing what information his computer can provide in this area. I wish to ask the minister now about the comments of Judith Maxwell of the C. D. Howe Institute. Did the minister have any previous warning from the staff of his department that the May budget would, in effect, cause an increasing rate of loss on a barrel produced as the price of oil increased? Instead of giving an additional profit to the producers of oil it would actually cost them money, bearing in mind the schemes proposed by the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the federal government. Did the minister have any warning of that? I do not mean the details of the budget because I know the minister cannot give any budgetary details to anyone before it is presented in this House. Were those provinces in fact warned that they were paying too much attention to the minister's colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, when he was telling them a few months earlier that they should be increasing their royalties? Of course, Mr. Chairman, that accelerating cost to industry represented by taxes is not a result of the federal impositions, which are a flat rate. They are a result of the escalating royalties above the base price. Did the minister in fact know that the combined effect of his budget, which removed deductibility, and the provincial action of increasing royalties in the way they have, would cause a loss position to the producers as the price went up? Mr. Chairman, that is true in the province of Saskatchewan. The hon. member asked whether the provinces had received warning. They did, in the form of a letter from the Prime Minister of Canada to the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan. This was tabled in the House earlier. I would refer the hon. member to the Prime Minister's speech during the budget debate. I hope the minister will eventually answer my question as to how much he figures Alberta withdrew, and whether my information that it was $500 million is correct. When answering that, will the minister also state whether the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan have made any additional room for the producers? Mr. Chairman, we will not know the final amount of money returned to the producers by the province of Alberta until the year elapses. We will then see what the activity means in terms of volume of revenue against prices. I stated to the House that I welcomed the substantial move made by the province of Alberta. The hon. memebr alleges that, compared to that, the federal move was peanuts. However, he ought to remember that the revenue taken out of the oil companies from provincial taxation and royalties as compared to that derived from federal tax runs in the ratio, even after the budget, of about two and a half or three to one in favour of the province. I suppose that is the way it should be, seeing they are the owners of the resource. I am a little surprised the minister cannot run through the Alberta program in his computer. He seems to be able to run everything else through, based on certain assumptions. I do not see how he can make the forecasts he does with his computer using assumptions, and then say he cannot do the same with the same assumptions with regard to provincial activity. Mr. Chairman, the computer has to have some information. Alberta has not yet set its rates of escalation, nor has it defined the break-off price between new and old oil. When Alberta comes up with that information we can put it into the computer. Without it, it is a little difficult. We think that the amount returned to the table by the province of Alberta is somewhere between $300 million and $400 million. Until Alberta becomes more precise with its regulations we will not really know. I will leave that area and ask one final question. How much does the government anticipate increasing its revenue from the time of the effects of this budget over what was allowed for in the preceding situation? In the May 6 budget we anticipated that extra revenue to the federal government from petroleum and natural gas would be in the range of $410 million for the year 1975. Always bearing in the mind the effect of the advantage with regard to acquisition costs, which would be a plus on the government side? It is a very small amount. Seeing the minister does not know what it is, I suppose that is very subjective. What concerns me most about this budget bill is the fact that, shortly after the November budget and the ways and means motions were announced, there were a series of announcements by major oil companies in Canada to the effect they were cutting back on their exploration budget. In view of announcements by the government's agencies of an energy shortage coming within a very short time, I am surprised that more interest is not displayed by the federal government in arresting the decline in activity in exploration in this country, whether it be in the provinces of Alberta or Saskatchewan, or lands under its jurisdiction, such as the Arctic and offshore. Are we to assume that these cuts are permanent? As a result of a further digesting of this budget by the major oil companies, has the minister received any indication that they are now able to restore some of the exploration funds that were cut in their budgets announced at the end of 1974, and which are certainly being reflected by a decrease in the number of drilling rigs that are active? Have the minister's officials advised him as to the relative attractiveness of exploring for oil and natural gas in Canada compared with that activity in the United States? It appears that the bulk of the loss of drilling equipment has been to the United States. I fail to understand an attitude on the part of this government that appears to say we can have a significantly different financial arrangement relating to oil and gas here from that which exists in the United States. Can the minister assure us there is still as much attraction in exploring for petroleum products in Canada as there is in the United States? If he does not know what the Alberta regulations are, can he tell us about the situation in the Arctic where the federal government has complete jurisdiction? What is the position there as compared with positions in the United States? I am aware, of course, of the movement of drilling rigs. The drilling operators were down to see me here and I went over the whole picture with them at their request. Taxation is only one of the relevant factors. These people are highly mobile, highly skilled; they can go anywhere in the world, and they go where the action is. It is difficult to compare incentives in the United States with those in Canada because the picture is changing all the time. As for the frontier, the Arctic, where we have jurisdiction both over the royalty rate and the tax rate, I told one of the hon. member's colleagues in the House the other day that we would ensure that a combination of these two rates was sufficiently attractive to encourage exploration in the north and offshore. The hon. member might recall the earlier submissions made to me by the hon. member for Calgary South, the hon. member for Calgary Centre and, yesterday, by the substantial member for Edmonton Centre, as well as others who have directed attention to this point. These responses are very interesting but they do not seem to answer many of the important questions I have raised. We have been waiting for more than four years now, to hear any definitive statemenl about wbat the situation is to be in the Arctic and in offshore areas which fall entirely under the control of the federal government. The government refuses to come to any decision. I could only say in general terms with regard to the bill before us that it disturbs me greatly to watch the situation developing which makes it increasingly difficult for private enterprise to operate successfully in this country -- the consequence of concerted efforts, or perhaps I should say unconcerted efforts on the part of the federal and provincial governments. The Syncrude project has now been saved, apparently by a substantial injection of funds from federal and provincial governments. Nevertheless the prospect for further development of the tar sands appears to me unsatisfactory. The forecasts for future oil shortages, or their avoidance, were based on the assumption that several plants would be developed and operating in the oil sands. However, following the recent Syncrude crisis which, I believe, was brought about substantially as a result of budgetary measures taken by the government and the reduction in the cash flow to the companies, future development of this resource appears a long way off. As I say, it disturbs me to see an attitude developing, apparently at both levels of government, that it is not desirable that the private sector should take risks and show an aggressive desire to develop Canadian resources. Governments at both levels seem to think it is desirable to form a partnership betwen the public and the private sectors on the excuse that it is no longer possible for private corporations to obtain the capital which is required to develop resources. Mr. Chairman, there is only one reason sufficient pools of capital cannot be formed, and it is because government taxation policies at both provincial and federal level make it impossible. I wish the federal government would show some leadership to the provinces which, it seems to me, need some encouragement to reverse the course upon which they have embarked, that of making it impossible for the private sector to develop the nation's resources. After all it is private industry which made us self-sufficient in the first place; there is no example in the world known to me of a government agency finding a sufficient energy source, or developing it. I urge the minister that when he is preparing his next budget he should change the direction upon which he has embarked, particularly with reference to the non-deductibility of royalty payments. I should like to ask the minister why he is not willing to split the bill in two parts and deal separately with the part which affects individuals and smaller corporations. In my opinion the clauses dealing with resources could be treated as a distinct subject. We read reports that the costs of the Syncrude project have increased by 50 per cent in nine days. Events in the resource field are moving so rapidly that it is hard to see why the department insists on dealing with them in the particular bill before us. The minister should consider reports that the unemployment situation in the United States is much more serious than was anticipated. Here in Canada, in the maritimes for example, unemployment has risen to a figure of more than 16 per cent, amounting to a major depression. Unemployment is worsening in other parts of Canada, and we read in the papers today that there is likely to be a new budget brought in soon after next first ministers' meeting, one which will, I presume, be concerned largely with the resource sector. It would seem to me that the minister is not really in tune with the times, but rather that he is responding to the mandates of his own department in putting this measure together. It seems to me there is a risk that the budget, when passed, may be relevant only to situations which no longer exist. In these circumstances it would be better for us to consider those measures which are likely to be of benefit to the average taxpayer. The unemployment situation is more important to Canada than whether oil rigs leave this country or not. As the minister says, they are highly mobile; they can go south or they can go north, and if the incentives are placed high enough, they will come back. In any case, most of those rigs are not equipped to drill in the Arctic or offshore, and we must face the fact that the nature and availability of the oil resource has undergone a change. The minister is well aware that one of the main problems he is facing today is that of unemployment, and the need for a lot of money to be placed very quickly into the economy to increase the purchasing power of those at the lower end of the income scale. If he does not accomplish this very quickly we will find ourselves in the same position as the United States is in today. People will be putting their money in banks rather than spending it on soft goods. If this happens to any great extent we will all be going down the drain along with the resource industries. It would seem to be sensible for the minister to put aside those portions of the budget which deal with the resource industry. If he were to do this there would be less reaction from the provinces, and less opposition from political parties to the passage of this bill. I am sure the minister would find co-operation in respect of the passage of the remaining parts of the bill. The bill before the committee is immense and I am sure it affects every citizen in the country, probably to a greater extent than it does the resource industry, although its impact on the resource industry might be much greater in the long run. It seems to me that the minister might gain public confidence by bringing forward the 60 or 70 amendments required rather than bringing forward another budget in April, which he is apparently comtemplating. This bill will probably be the most amended bill in history. It has only been kicking around for a little while, but if we keep it around for another two or three months it will end up with more amendments than original bill. Shades of Edgar Benson! Yes, shades of Edgar Benson, and shades of Pickersgill as well! He put through a bill that he understood was going to create a job for all time, but he got tired of it and went into a totally different field. He thought he had crossed all the "t's" and dotted all the "i's", and that the matter would never require change, but that did not turn out be the fact. If the minister really wants to make his mark he will have to make it so that people know he is doing something for those who have saved and are trying to live on their savings. He will have to do something for those who are unable to live with inflation today. The minister must make some changes that will bolster our economy. The minister must make changes in order to put more purchasing power in the hands of people who will spend the money for short and long-term benefits, and the most obvious area in this regard is housing. If the minister makes funds available in this way he will do more to eliminate unemployment in our major cities than by anything else he might do. I have some sympathy for the minister's position in wanting to retain some federal control in the area of resources. I am not entirely sure I agree with some of my colleagues who believe the provinces own the resources. Because somebody draws an arbitrary boundary, that does not necessarily put me as a Canadian in the position of not being able to take as much advantage of these resources as anyone else in the country. I do not think the approach taken by the minister is totally understood by the people he is dealing with, or totally understood by his officials. Perhaps when they understand the situation fully things will change. This resource business is an on-going proposition. As the profit picture changes, and as the amount of subsidization required lessens, the whole proposition will change. The minister realizes that the provinces require some of this resource money to continue to develop resources. This is obvious from the fact that the minister changed his original intention regarding the deductibility of expenses from taxation. I wonder what would happen if the Department of Natural Resources of Ontario took over all the mines in Ontario. What would happen if the province took INCO and some of the other mining companies under its wing? Would there be any resource money available for taxation by the federal government? I doubt it very much. There would be no resources. I suggest there will be development whether or not INCO makes a profit. We do not have enough resources for these people to sit like old hens on top of these nest eggs, particularly when the world is so desperately in need of resources. That may be a red Tory proposition, but it sure as heck isn't the fact. I may be mixing my metaphors because I really do not know what this means, or how it applies. It's a red herring. It's not a red herring either. In any event, I am sure the budget is the subject of considerable consideration over a long period of time. Since the minister's officials originally put the proposition together it has been modified many times. That section of the budget which relates to the resource sector is still fluid and subject to amendment. To be fair to the minister let me say that I am sure he is not taking that position. There is still a fluidness in respect of the resource field which will allow the minister to continue negotiations. While the subject of resources is a matter that concerns members of this place, there are other subjects of great importance dealt with in the budget. I suggest the minister could gain considerable ground by splitting the budget into several different parts. In this way we could concentrate on the various sections which are intended to help the average citizen who is paying most of the taxes. We could deal with those sections and increase the purchasing power of those who are at the bottom end of the economic structure. In this way the Minister of Finance, without becoming socialistic, would be in a much better position to cope with the problems we have in Canada. The minister could do more to solve inflation in Canada than those in authority are doing in the United States to solve that country's problems. The minister, however, is not likely to split the budget and bring in several parts simply because that has never been done before. The minister has lost a number of competent people from his department, for one reason or another. He might lose more if he attempted to split the budget. I suggest he might also have difficulty in bringing in another budget in April if those people who are helping him in getting this bill passed are not soon released from attendance here. I would strongly urge the minister to realize that we are facing a totally different situation than the one we have faced for many years. The minister would be well advised to postpone discussion on those portions of the budget which deal with the resource industry so that we can get on with those other matters in the budget that affect the individual Canadian. I am sure the minister would have co-operation in passing those parts of this bill. We might kick the rest of it around until the minister and the first ministers finally decide on what should be done in respect of the resource question. I would strongly urge that this division be made. I suggest that the minister give consideration to splitting the bill. I think he would then have a much better chance of having this bill passed in the next two or three weeks. I should like to ask th Minister of Finance a few questions regarding the resource industry and timing. In introducing the last budget the minister stated that the projected tax increase for oil and gas amounted to $10 million, and said that the provincial taxes and royalties had eaten into the tax base of the federal government and thus undermined the federal position. However, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the fall of 1973, only a few months before, suggested to the provinces that they were not charging the resource industry enough. I should like to ask the minister when he and the government reached the conclusion that something would have to be done because the provinces were taxing the resource industry too heavily and undermining the tax base. I dealt with this matter rather fully on second reading on the bill. Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to find it in Hansard and see whether I have answered it sufficiently, perhaps not to his satisfaction but at least to cover the parameters of his question. I read the minister's statement two or three times, and I saw that at one time the government must have decided that the provinces were taxing too heavily. Presumably there was a change at some time. Now I would like to ask the minister whether he has consulted with his counterparts in the provinces on the general matter of resource taxation, and how much consulting was done. Were the provinces canvassed extensively, and was the position of the federal government regarding this matter made known to them? Concerning the details, yes of course it has. However, as I have said before, budgetary items are not telegraphed to the provinces, nor do the provinces telegraph their budgets to me or give me notice of their budgetary intentions. But certainly the views of the federal government, to the effect that unilateral resource taxation of both mining petroleum on the part of several of the provinces was eroding the federal tax base, were communicated to them at the level of the Prime Minister of Canada to the premiers. I should like to ask the minister whether any general discussions have been held. I suggest that the reason that we have this trouble is that until recently resources have not generated enough revenue for either the government or the provinces to have become very excited about it. We have had to give away too much to get them going. We had a very thorough discussion of this matter at the level of ministers of finance on December 9 and 10 in Ottawa. What parliament might think on this matter might not be the same as what individual provinces might think, but there was a thorough discussion of the matter and I think that, as in the past, evolving federalism is working out a consensus. We drew back on November 18, Alberta made some positive substantial moves later, and B.C. has shown some flexibility regarding taxation of natural gas. I hope there will be give and take on matters of price and market when the first ministers meet in April and that the impasse, now largely softened, will become resolved. If I heard the minister right, a few minutes ago he suggested that the provinces were getting approximately three times as much money out of the resources as the federal government. I would like to ask the minister if this three to one ratio is based on the last budget or on the May budget, and perhaps he can give us a rough approximation of what he considers to be the division of the take between the federal and provincial governments, before and after the two last budgets. I set out the figures fully in my speech on second reading, and in the remarks I made to my colleagues from the provinces in December. Those remarks were circulated to every member of parliament. Roughly, before the May and November budgets the province of Alberta was taking about six times as much revenue out of petroleum as was the federal government. Subsequent to those two budgets it runs now between 2 1/2 and 3 times as much. Nonsense. The hon. member for Edmonton West reminds me that the figure excludes the export tax. I excluded it for the reason that it is a diminishing factor and, of course, cannot be considered in the medium and long term relationship. Oh, oh! Madam Chairman, I would like to ask a question regarding the attitude of the Minister of Finance on the principal business clause, with which I believe the hon. member for Calgary Centre dealt yesterday to some extent. I believe that by and large this principal business clause only applies to oil and hobby farming. I remember the days in 1951 when investment in the oil industry was deductible. It seems to be the case that because the capital invested in Canada in the oil industry is mainly American, the Americans own a large part of our oil industry and they have an advantage over Canadians under the principal business provision. In the debate on the white paper on taxation it was made obvious that much of the drilling was undertaken with American money and by very small investors. Now that we are so anxious to increase oil production in the short run, is the minister seriously considering removing the principal business clause, or raising the amount so that it is in line with inflation, as a better business practice? Madam Chairman, I dealt with that question fully in response to the hon. member for Calgary Centre yesterday. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the first time in this debate on Bill C-49, and realize the problem faced not only by hon. members, but indeed by the officials that wrote such a bill. This bill was introduced with 37 amendments. By the time the committee stage is completed, further amendments will probably be introduced to amend those already moved. I therefore wonder if the officials are not now preparing amendments to the next bill, that is to the bill that will follow the minister's next budget, during the next session. The bill proposes some income tax reductions, and this drew my attention. However, the people are being hoodwinked. Recently, newspaper reports indicated the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) looked favourably upon wage indexing, noting however that every pay increase given the workers brings a new rise in income tax deductions. As we know, computations show each time daily wages, or even hourly wages are increased by $1.25, the federal and provincial governments will take at least a $1 share. Small wonder then the minister is interested in having wage indexing accepted by workers and employers alike. I would ask the Minister of Finance to what extent the government intends to tax the income of those individuals, those workers, those people who produce something for society, who build and develop our country because out of what is left of their salary after the government has taken its share, they still have to pay for countless taxes every time they spend their money, thereby contributing to increase the government's revenue. Inflation is actually meant to increase governmental incomes. Even if governments say they are introducing tax cuts here and there, they still manage to make a profit with the help of inflation. I want the Minister of Finance to tell us what he intends to do for the individual, specially the worker who earns a living for himself and his family through his own labour instead of deriving interest from investments, which is a different kind of income altogether. What does the minister intend to do to enable those who strive for a living to keep a greater part of what they earn, so that they can meet their liabilities and have a decent living without always having to crawl to finance corporations and mortgage their next salary? In fact, I would like personal income taxes to stop growing, and I would like to know what the Minister of Finance has in mind in that respect. Madam Chairman, I believe we have increased personal exemptions, family exemptions for the greater benefit of workers. On two occasions for the year 1974-75 we have introduced considerable personal income tax reductions, 66 per cent of which applied to people earning $10,000 or less a year. I am therefore deeply aware of the point made by our Social Credit colleague, and I wish to assure him that I will bear in mind the relevance of his point. Madam Chairman, I must say that I found it rather interesting to contemplate the reasoning of the minister in reply to the hon. member for Dauphin with regard to the rationale of the Government of Canada moving into the field of disallowance of royalties, licences, leases, fees, and so forth, in that it wanted to restore a certain balance of revenues from natural resources in the country, which it felt it had to have. Bluntly that is what it is. The government has said time and time again that Alberta and Saskatchewan, in their changing the royalty formulae with regard to petroleum, had arrogated unto themselves far more revenue than they were entitled to, and that the federal government had to have a share. That is what it was. My inclination was to accept the export tax because that far exceeds all of the revenues of the provinces with regard to those resources, and so therefore that has to be established once and for all. On the question of a declining commodity the minister is taking a pessimistic view. As a matter of fact he is taking the view that this budget is destined to bring about the killing of the industry. On a point of order, Madam Chairman-- If the minister will let me have my opportunity-- The Minister of Finance on a point of order. Order, now, not argument. On a point of order, Madam Chairman, I did not say declining commodity, I said declining phenomenon; the export tax was a declining phenomenon. A declining phenomenon. I do not know that the minister has a crystal ball or some forecast which will guarantee that the price of oil on the world market will decline, or the converse, that Canada will actually be forced to suspend its exports to the United States to the point of zero, or almost zero. I will say that this budget is guaranteed to make darn sure that the conventional oil industry has platformed. Certainly a ceiling has hit it right now, again by bungling amateurs who do not understand the workings of the oil industry. This applies all through the government. It is just something that is to be despoiled. They see some government making money beyond what the government of Canada says should be its share. What does the government say to the utilization by provinces of other resources such as water power through Crown corporations and making a profit thereon? The Government of Canada gets not one blessed penny from that. Why does the government not move in on the production of electricity by Crown corporations if it is going to use the same rationale and if it is going to be logical? If the provinces are making too much money through their Crown corporations and there is no federal share, I invite the government to be logical and insist that it can tax B.C. power, Saskatchewan Power, Quebec Hydro, Ontario Hydro, and New Brunswick Hydro. All of that exploitation of natural resources is by Crown corporations, and no tax is payable to the Government of Canada. The government of Canada derives no revenue from it as with regard to the oil industry. Marcel the Red. I say that in order to be logical and fair the government should apply what it is doing to Saskatchewan and Alberta, in regard to the petroleum industry, to the exploitation of natural resources in other provinces. That would be fair. The hon. member for Sudbury does not understand the difference between royalties-- Nickel Belt. What is the difference? All the difference in the world. He cannot distinguish between royalties payable to the provinces and royalties payable to individuals, foreign corporations or Canadian corporations who happen to own the freehold. Those are all permitted. One is a tax and one is contractual. You know that. Nonsense. That is only what the minister's rationale is in order to pick on this particular thing. I am going to suggest to the minister something that might reinforce what my colleague, the hon. member from-- I will introduce you two guys. --the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. The names of all constituencies are not as easy as that of Edmonton West. The suggestion that the hon. member made to the minister the other day merits more mature reflection than it has received up to the present. He proposed that those provisions which deal with royalties, lease fees, or any fees payable to the provinces with regard to the development of natural resources -- this does not apply only to Alberta or Saskatchewan but to all provinces -- be grouped and not proclaimed until after the conference of first ministers in April. A few moments ago the minister indicated that the government had modified its position with regard to exploration expenses in the budget of November 18. It did not have the right to do what it had in the May budget in any event. That was voted against. The minister then came forward and modified it with regard to exploration expenses, but the development expenses could be written off only on a 30 per cent declining basis. The exploration expenses could be written off in one year. I suppose he thought he was being generous. Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that the government of Canada went out on a limb in May does not mean that the province of Alberta should now make a concession because, presumably, the government of Canada was making a concession. The government's move is worth nothing. I suggest to the minister that if he and his colleagues have any confidence in their ability to resolve the impasse between the government of Canada, the government of Alberta and the other provincial governments with regard to their resources, they should start here. I am sure the minister does not disregard entirely the almost unanimous view of the governments of the provinces expressed last September when the mines ministers all expressed opposition to even starting with these provisions in clause (4) and all through the bill, with regard to resources. Why does the minister insist that this bill be passed now and so present a fait accompli to the provincial premiers, particularly the Premier of Alberta? How can he hope for any accommodation with regard to the increase in the price of oil? He wants his pound of flesh now, and again in April. I find the government's attitude incomprehensible unless it wants to grab everything for itself. Of course it has been on the grab since May 6 -- indeed since September, 1973, as far as this industry is concerned. It just could not stand to see these Canadian businesses -- all of them paying taxes -- deriving a benefit. Because of the desire for the quick buck and the desire to centralize power on the part of certain of the minister's colleagues, this is what has happened to the industry. There is nothing more abominable in this budget and the budget of May -- which was voted down-- And reinstated by the Canadian people. Nonsense. Not all the Canadian people. Let us put an end to that canard. The people of central Canada did it, the people who feel they are not affected. As a matter of fact more than half of them derive direct benefit from the export tax which comes off the backs of operations in the province of Alberta. It is the oil industry of Saskatchewan, Alberta and a small portion in British Columbia that pays the whole of the export tax -- that says a subvention to the province of Quebec and eastern Canada. Talk about a transfer of funds! We will see how this government moves in future when we have a similar situation involving other resources. That is where its support came from in the election. Of course Ministers knew they were on to a good thing, and they are still on to a good thing. The Alberta oil industry is the holstein cow of the country. And what is happening? Drill crews are moving out and drilling operations are closing down. Certain people in this country just do not understand that if exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas in this country decline, so will the subsidy they receive decline. The subsidy they are getting will disappear, unless the government can find the money elsewhere. But the government is unwilling to adjust. It may be unwilling to find the money from other sources. I suggest that the minister should provide for the coming into force of this section only after the first ministers' meeting-- Madam Chairman, may I finish my sentence? Order, please. The hon. member for NIckel Belt is recognized. Perhaps with the consent of the hon. member for Nickel Belt he can finish what he had to say. Does the committee agree to allow the hon. member to finish his remarks? Agreed. Madam Chairman, I thank hon. members. However, if matters remain as they are, I cannot gurantee anything, nor can my colleagues. Madam Chairman, can the minister say what the effective federal tax rate was for the resource industry in 1974? What does the hon. gentleman mean by the effective tax rate? What was the rate paid in federal taxes, after deductions for exploration and depletion allowances, etc.? Madam Chairman, we do not get those figures until we work out all calculations necessary, to do with incentives, and so on; we do not get those until two or three years after the taxation year. Has the minister figures for 1971, 1972 or 1973? We will try to get figures for 1972. Madam Chairman, may I follow up something I raised yesterday. Hopefully we may conclude discussion on clause I before five o'clock. I will be brief. Yesterday, as recorded at page 3159 of Hansard I asked the minister if he could supply the House with information on a fiscal year and calendar year basis concerning the net effect on revenue of indexing and of the reductions in taxes as provided for in this bill. The minister said he would read my submission carefully and see if he could provide those estimates. I ask him now if, overnight, he has been able to arrive at a decision with respect to the matter I raised? Mr. Chairman, the hon. member stated yesterday that in my November 18 budget speech I indicated that the reduction in personal income tax liability in 1975, as a result of indexing, would be $950 million, while on Monday I indicated that the reduction would be $750 million. That is how the question came up. The hon. member asked which figure is correct. In response I indicated that one figure was for the calendar year and another for the fiscal year. In so doing I misunderstood the question and perhaps misled hon. members. I ought to have responded that both figures are correct. The $950 million reference in the budget speech was the total tax saving attributable to people in 1975 because of indexing; the $750 million figure is part of that $950 million which is attributable to the federal treasury. The other $200 million is attributable to provincial treasuries. To sum up, the revenue reduction through indexing for the calendar year 1974 was $400 million for the federal treasury and $125 million for the provinces. In 1975 the saving to the taxpayer is expected to be $750 million from the federal treasury, and $200 million from the provinces. We do not ordinarily calculate these figures on a fiscal year basis. Madam Chairman, would the minister reply to that part of my question concerning the net effect of the tax reductions contemplated in Bill C-49? That was the second part of the question I asked yesterday. I think I gave that figure to the hon. gentleman. I think it is $1.5 billion. In any event he can find it in my response to his earlier speech on the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I replied to the hon. member's remarks and, in my four points, I think I gave him the figure. If he looks it up, I think he will find it. Madam Chairman, perhaps the minister did not understand my question. I want to know what will be the gross tax deductions, as a result of the provisions of this bill, in the fiscal and calendar years 1974, 1975 and 1976. Madam Chairman, I think I said in response to a question put to me by another member that we do not have, except for major measures, any tax reduction or tax implication forecast. The Department of Finance has to adopt an over-all view of the government's fiscal position and policy. It is important that we look at the total revenue and total outlay picture rather than simply at personal income tax, on which the hon. member for York-Simcoe is concentrating. By the same token we must look not only at budgetary expenditures but also at non-budgetary expenditures and at the total outlay, including old age pensions. In other words we look at the over-all financial requirements of the government and consider the implications of both receipts and outlays. These are set forth fully in the budget papers. Madam Chairman, I will return to this point later. We are not making many yards in our effort to obtain figures. Without question, hon. members are entitled to know them. Also yesterday, I dealt with the budgetary deficit, and then with the surplus as predicted by the Minister of Finance. Does the minister not agree that in his May 6, 1974, national accounts basis forecast for 1974-75 he predicted a deficit of $160 million, but that in his November 18, 1974, national accounts basis forecast for 1974-75 he predicted a $275 million surplus on a national accounts basis? Madam Chairman, I was referring to what I raised yesterday. I am greatly disturbed by the minister's suggestion, as recorded, I think at page 3065 of Hansard, that I misled the House. At that time the minister stated: This afternoon the hon. gentleman said that I had projected a cash deficit of $1.6 billion for 1974-1975 and $3 billion for 1975-76. Yet he looks at the current budgetary account and says we have a surplus. He is comparing a surplus account before the final drawdown with a total cash deficit which includes both non-budgetary and budgetary expense items. In other words, he is comparing apples with oranges and is misleading the House. If hon. members read the record of the debate, they will see exactly what he has tried to do. I sincerely hope members have read the record because, if they did, they will have seen that the Minister of Finance has had a hallucination or something. There is absolutely no reference in my remarks of that afternoon to the figures or the concept to which the minister referred. Yesterday I gave the minister an opportunity to review his statement and apologize, or state clearly that he had misunderstood my remarks or that he had made a mistake. He declined to do so. I realize the minister is under great pressure. I realize he is being besieged by the "Group of Seven" and that he has some international problems to deal with in addition to dealing the national picture. However, I suggest it is unforgiveable for a Minister of Finance to so distort the facts in the name of truth. As far as the minister's remarks are concerned, the only connection I can see is my comment which appears on page 3065 of the debate of that day where I said: In the earlier budget of May, the Minister of Finance indicated that we would be in a deficit position this year. By November he had changed his opinion, saying we will have a surplus of $275 million. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance if he would agree that on a budgetary basis he, in fact, shifted from a deficit to a surplus forecast. He agreed that was correct. Today I asked him the same question concerning a change from a deficit position in national accounts to a surplus position. He said if you have read from the budgetary reference and that is what is shown, that is true. His memory seems to be a little more forgetful today than yesterday. The fact is that in the November 18 budgetary speech and the May 6 budgetary sppech, the figures that I gave are exactly correct. I again ask the Minister of Finance to admit that he made a mistake on Monday, that he misunderstood the remarks I made and withdraw the suggestion that I misled the House in the fashion he stated at page 3066 of Hansard. I hope the record will once again show that the Minister of Finance has declined to admit a serious mistake that he has put on the record of this House, and which reflects on a member of this House. It is intolerable. It is disgusting. Oh, oh! If I still have time, Madam Chairman, I intend to deal more fully with the position of the minister concerning this matter. However, at the present time, as I stated, I hope we will be able to make progress on clause 1. If I may I will put a couple of questions of a general nature to the minister. One is with regard to the tax accounting now applicable to corporations and businessmen generally. It concerns the handling of their inventories on an accounting basis prior to income tax being chargeable and to the prevelant tax law concerning the depreciation allowances in business. Can the minister explain why there is no provision in Bill C-49 to relieve businessmen from the inequity of their present accounting tax-wise procedures which do not allow for a suitable inflationary increment in both inventory and real estate value in property? Madam Chairman, we consulted widely in the accounting profession and the tax executive institute. There was no unanimity as to how we should deal with the problem of inflation accounting. We may well have reached the stage in the cycle where to amend the act to allow inflation accounting, that is to say, revaluation of inventories and revaluation of depreciation, would work to the disadvantage of the very businesses that now in terms of accounting may, because of inflation, not be representing the proper picture in real terms as accurately as they might. Madam Speaker, can I assume from the minister's comments that this matter is under review and that possibly a consensus or agreement can be worked out with the legal accounting people so that there could be an amendment forthcoming? The matter is under active review, Madam Chairman. I might now get to a second "inflationary" question. It is with respect to capital gains. Can the minister indicate if the possibility of indexing capital gains is also under review in order to avoid the confiscation of property which may occur as a result of inflationary increases? Madam Chairman, there is no intent to extend the indexing principle further in the act at this stage. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the House might proceed to the consideration of private members' business. 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 Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin)-- Canadian National Railways-- Sale of part of hotel system; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-- The Canadian Economy-- Estimates used to project unemployment figures in budget. Madam Speaker, perhaps there may be agreement to revert to motions in order to permit the chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development to table its third report. Is it agreed that we revert to motions? Agreed. 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, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills. Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. Madam Speaker, I believe there is an arrangement among all parties in the House that we call the motion for the production of papers standing in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and we can probably have the vote. The House resumed from Thursday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marshall: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all material resulting from the first meeting of the VLA senior management team convened by the Director-General of the Veterans' Land Administration in Ottawa from March 26 to 29, 1973 as follows (a) operational plans in the periods before and after March 31, 1974, deadline for new loan applications (b) further implementation of MBO as the VLA style of management. I have to advise the House that if the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) speaks he will close the debate. Agreed. Call in the members. The House divided on the motion (Mr. Marshall) which was negatived on the following division: The House resumed at 8 p.m. Order, please. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-49, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax. Shall clause 1 carry? Carried. Clause 1 agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to. On clause 4. Mr. Chairman, my remarks will concern something which has occupied the minds of members on my side of the House. Many of us doubt the wisdom of passing at this particular time clause 4 of this bill and clauses related to it. It provides, in effect, that royalties and taxes paid by resource industries to provinces shall not be deductible for purposes of income tax. I oppose this type of legislation on grounds that it is constitutionally incorrect. It is clear to me as a layman, and is clear to every schoolboy, that the resources of this country, whether land or mineral, belong to the people of the provinces, to be used by them as they see fit. This is what the British North America Act provides. The provinces have the right to all the emoluments which accrue from these resources, and may use them for their own purposes as they see fit. This is what the provinces agreed to in 1867. Resources belong to the people of the provinces in which the resources are found. Last fall, when we debated the petroleum administration bill, I said that we must be careful as parliamentarians not to interfere with the longstanding prerogatives of the Crown. I meant, we must not interfere with the rights of the people of Saskatchewan, the rights of the people of Ontario, or the rights of the people in any other province. If parliament interferes with rights over resources, it is interfering with the prerogatives of the people of the provinces. On the constitutional issue, I do not think there is any question that this particular type of legislation, which appeared after the May 6 budget, was turned down by this House and then popped up again after the November 18 budget, is a clear infringement on what we call our constitution. In plain, simple terms, the province has the legal and moral right to take all the wealth that comes from these resources. When we, the federal parliament, unilaterally challenge that right, we are challenging the constitution of this country. It is agreed that the federal government has power to control trade between provinces and across our national boundary. It is agreed the federal government has the right to tax all forms of wealth that come from corporation taxes and any other type of tax. However, when you have a body of jurisprudence collected over the years of existence of this country as a nation that has always held where the law stands in relationship to the rights of a province to its own resources, any government, and that includes this government, should consider very seriously what they are trying to do in this unilateral action. It might interest the committee to remember a case in Saskatchewan where a company or series of companies challenged the right of the province of Saskatchewan to take all of the increased value of oil which resulted from the oil increase in price in 1973. That case was heard. The federal arguments were all presented by able counsel, who argued that the provincial government in raising its royalties and taxes was interfering with the federal right to tax and with the federal control over trade. After a long deliberation, the judge turned down the federal case and gave his decision to the province. At this very moment, the federal Minister of Justice is helping these companies in Saskatchewan appeal their case to the Court of Appeal in the province of Saskatchewan. The Minister of Justice has accepted the fact that if this case goes through to the Supreme Court and the federal government loses, then the arguments we have heard presented by the government on the right to do what they are doing in this area are null and void. We know it will take at least all of this year to get the case before the Court of Appeal in Saskatchewan. If that appeal goes against the federal government, it will take another two or three years to get it through the Supreme Court, unless we ask for a special hearing in the national interest. The laymen across this nation who are not lawyers or judges but have an ordinary sense of justice and equity, when these facts are laid before them, will question the wisdom of this government deliberately attacking the whole foundation of the constitution and deliberately interfering wise or ignoring what seems to be the decision in the courts of our land. The second point I wish to make deals with legal jurisprudence about which I as a layman know as little as most. However, I have read some of these cases. Put into my words, they simply tell me this. If a government at any level goes ahead and taxes or does something that is purely within its constitutional right to do, then when another government at another level introduces a tax or does something purely within its constitutional provisions and rights, and that second act of either taxing or doing something interferes with, nullifies or voids the actions that the previous government took on the particular subject, that second action is null and void under the law. Even if that action by the second government is disguised in any form whatsoever, the judges of this land have held that if it interferes with the original act or tax of the original government that moved within its constitutional rights, the act of the second government is thrown out. The third point I want to make is that in this particular bill the federal government has taken unilateral action. This means only one thing, that it is going to force the provinces to take protective action. They can do this within their own province by several devices. It is not for me to outline all the ways they can get around what this government plans to do in this budget with putting in this non-deductibility of provincial taxes and royalties. However, any provincial government determined to protect the rights of the people of that province against the federal government's unilateral action against them, such as it is doing in this budget, regardless of its political face, would be inclined to take that resource and put it under the control of a provincial agency or a provincial crown corporation, turn over the management of that company to private enterprise on a fee basis, and then challenge the right of the federal government to tax that crown corporation. I would not like to see any province forced against its political doctrine to take this type of action. Most of them know that with the record we have with crown corporations at both the federal and provincial level in the last 35 or 40 years that rare indeed is a crown corporation that can act in an industry such as the resource industry and either produce it efficiently or survive the risk factor. However, I suggest this unilateral action will stir up several of the provinces to move in this direction. That is the next point I want to make, that we are endangering the type of economic base that we need in the development of our resources. This is not a subject that is remote. I recall that in the early days of the oil industry in the west we had an NDP government in Saskatchewan. It had to decide what it was going to do. The government of that day was headed by a premier who is now a member of this House. He looked at the situation, looked at the amount of money that was needed in that risk enterprise, looked at the people of Saskatchewan, and he faced reality. He decided to write a letter, backed by a letter from his provincial treasurers, to all the oil companies stating that as long as he was premier of Saskatchewan there would be no takeover or socialization of any of the resource industries, on the ground that it was too risky. What he said in his letter was that the government of Saskatchewan could serve its people best if it could get a share which would correspond to the best return from royalties it could get for the benefit of the people. Since that decision the government of that province has collected in royalties a higher percentage from the oil industries than neighbouring provinces. We are up against the same situation as a nation. We have to acknowledge that over the next 25 years, for energy related products alone, we shall have to raise $250 billion. The requirement in the United States is about four times as great. These are sums of money far beyond the ability of even the largest corporations to provide even when profits are running three or four times as high as they were a few years ago. They cannot raise one-tenth of the money we shall need. It will mean a united effort on the part of government, companies and people as individuals to meet this heavy capital requirement. I would think that in the interest of resource development, and in the interest of secondary industry which follows resource development, every government in Canada, every business in Canada and every individual in Canada should be asking: how are we pulling together to meet this tremendous challenge? I suggest to the minister that by his actions as evident from the petroleum administration legislation last April, the budget of May 8 and the budget of November 18, this government has done more to break apart co-operation than any other in the last 25 years. Ultimately the benefits of co-operation would flow to all individuals in Canada -- to all those who want ownership as individuals, not state ownership. On the basis of these arguments I say the clause before us is the optimum of all that is wrong with the government's actions. The attitude the government is taking is simple to understand if one word is used to describe it. That word is "confrontation". Canadian history, Canadian nature, demands consultation, because regardless of our political affiliation or ethnic background we are all Canadians. We are one country. The concept of confrontation is not a new one in the world but most of us hoped we had got rid of it and were moving toward an era of co-operation, not only within this country but in our relations with countries abroad. Yet here we find the government of Canada deliberately following a policy of confrontation. As I said yesterday, every time there has been a major confrontation between the federal government and the provinces, the federal government always lost the battle when the provinces united and stood fast. There are on the statute books of this country laws which are not good laws. I could mention, for example, the Canada Pension Plan. When all the provinces united and the federal government capitulated, the Canada Pension Plan was the result. I can only describe it as stealing from the young people of this country, because I know that when today's young people reach the age at which they are entitled to draw their pensions, there will be nothing there. Sure, it benefits those who are old now, but we have sold out our young people to achieve a purpose which is not good for the country. All right is not on the side of the federal government, neither is it on the side of the provinces. That plan, which was forced on the federal government by the provinces, is a bad one. Let me relate this to the events which will shortly be taking place in the field of natural resources. I would hate to see the provinces forced to rush pell mell into the creation of crown corporations as the only means by which they can develop their resources. There is a place for crown corporations but there is also a place for the type of efficiency characterized by private enterprise. I happen to believe that the people of Canada as individuals should own this country, not the people as a mass through a state organization. Hear, hear! I think the minister is wise, because he knows that if somebody intervenes I could go on for a further half hour. But I will spare him by concluding in all seriousness that the hon. gentleman is in a desperate political situation. He knows that if a party in opposition makes a proposal which does not deprive him of bargaining power but merely allows him a greater degree of flexibility, it is the type of proposal all the parties can support even though they might not agree upon what ought to be done at the conference. What we need for a good parliament is that when a positive construction or proposal is made by any person or party in this House it should be taken seriously. The members of the cabinet should look at the proposal and if they think there is merit, and it does not require the giving away of any of the government's position, they should accept it. That is what makes the parliamentary system work. It is only occasionally that the opposition gets the government to agree to a slight change. I am suggesting that this is one of the occasions when parliament would look better to the people of Canada if the minister did accept this moderate suggestion, namely that we move a small amendment -- and this has been done before on many occasions -- in which it is stated that clause 4, and all the related clauses which are cross-indexed to it, will not be proclaimed except by order-in-council. It is understood that this would mean the portion dealing with the non-deductibility of provincial tax on royalties would not be proclaimed until after the Prime Minister's meeting with the premiers. That is a moderate proposal which is not taking anything really away from the government, but it does add a little bit more flexibility to this coming meeting with the premiers. I think parliament would then look a lot better. Above all, I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that, if I am right and this is a moderate proposal, and if he is under duress or instruction from the cabinet or the Prime Minister, then he has a duty to himself and his future political survival to go to the Prime Minister and his colleagues and say that he thinks the opposition has made a moderate proposal and that he is going to look darn silly if he does not accept it. He should tell his colleagues that the government is going to look silly. Perhaps we should change the word "darn" a little bit. If the Minister of Finance puts that proposal to the Prime Minister and he does not accept it, then the minister has every right, as a politician with a future, to say that he cannot stay in a cabinet that is not flexible enough to agree to a moderate suggestion like this. This point is more vital than just winning a debate in this House. We are talking about the future of this country as a federal state consisting of a federal government and ten provincial governments. We have to work in an atmosphere of harmony in order to make the system work. I do not think this proposal is unreasonable. I indicated to the minister on January 30 that I was going to put this proposal forward. I made reference to it two or three days ago and I have repeated it tonight. If the minister wants goodwill in this House, now is the time to make the move that will engender this goodwill. There are many parts of this bill on which many of us would like to speak. Under the circumstances, with so much at stake at this conference on April 9 and 10 with all the mining provinces, the forestry provinces and the oil provinces, if this type of goodwill was demonstrated in this House I am sure it would help a lot in arriving at successful conclusions. Above all, it would help the Minister of Finance, because we would then know that he was a powerful individual in the cabinet willing to put his views on the line for parliament and the people. He does not have to soften his bargaining with the provinces. All he has to do is agree to the amendment, which will be to the effect that these related parts will not be proclaimed until after the conference. I think the minister should not only take the time to consider this, he should stand up to his colleagues and take a stand for all Canadians. Mr. Chairman, the issue we are debating at this time is clause 4 of the bill. This is a very lengthy bill and, in many ways, it is extremely controversial. I am sure the minister as well as all of us in the House will agree to that. This particular clause touches the root of federalism in this country. I do not say this in a political sense but as one who comes from the prairies. I am sure the Quebec members understand this issue as they have had disagreements before with Ottawa. In the past the disagreements Quebec has had with Ottawa have been basically on social, cultural and linguistic issues. We now have an issue in respect of which the prairie provinces in particular and the west in general have a disagreement with Ottawa. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance would be very wise to take up the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. A similar suggestion was made a week ago by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre and other members in the House. They have suggested that we either split the bill and deal with the resource section after the first ministers' conference, or we follow the precedent we have in the Foreign Investment Review Act, taking the part dealing with resources and proclaiming that section after the first ministers' meeting. Since the meeting with the first ministers is in April it would seem to me that if we pass this bill very quickly the Prime Minister will go to that meeting with a virtual club in his hands which he can hold over the heads of those first ministers. We in this House know the federal government is supreme and has a lot of power. This government now has a majority and can pretty well do what it likes. It can push this bill through the House if it wants. We also know that the federal government has immense taxing powers in respect of the resources in this country. I do not see why it needs this part of the income tax bill passed by the House before that meeting in April. Federalism in this country was established in the first place after a great deal of consensus and compromise and a lot of give and take by the various regions of the country. We have five or six very distinct regions divided by economics, geography and allowances. If we are to keep this country together we must have a spirit of co-operation, consensus and a lot of give and take on the part of the regions. We have all heard a great deal about the independence movement in Quebec and western separatism or nationalism in the prairies. When the government rams through a bill like this, all it is doing is feeding those fires and agitating the people who would like to see this country fall apart. In this way the government would be pitting the people in one part of the country against those in the other. Action of this kind is fuel for those who would have differences between various regions of the country, and I do not care whether it is the east against the west or Toronto against the rest of the country. If the government ram this bill through the House before the first ministers' meeting all they are doing is accentuating the suspicions that already exist in various parts of this country. Let me consider the export tax portion of this bill, and I want to refer to this in a non-partisan way. I think the Minister of Finance knows what I am coming to. If we make the calculations suggested in this bill, we find that Saskatchewan now produces about 70 million or 80 million barrels of oil per year. About half of that oil is exported to the United States. There is an export tax on oil of $5.20 a barrel. We also have a freeze on the price of domestic oil. If you take the $5.20 per barrel, which is what we are losing in Saskatchewan, and multiply that by 75 million barrels of oil you will see that Saskatchewan is losing annually some $400 million. That is a substantial contribution for a have-not province, or a province with an income below the national average, an income which fluctuates according to farm economy. Provincial politicians cannot control farm economy because of national grain prices, the weather and many other factors, but that province contributes $400 million annually from the sale of oil to the people who live east of the Ottawa Valley. This is a contribution the people are willing to make as long as there is some kind of trade-off. I think that is an adequate contribution for a province the size of Saskatchewan. What we expect is to have some consideration in respect of the things we use in our province. For years we have suffered freight rate discriminations. The hon. member for Battle River made reference to this earlier. One can ship a live cow from that area to Toronto cheaper than he can slaughter that same cow and ship the meat to Toronto. What we are saying is that we are willing to have a two price system for oil and a two price system for wheat, which we already have, if some consideration were given to some of our gripes and grievances about confederation. If you use some of that $4 million annually in terms of removing some of the anomalies in the freight rate system, then the province of Saskatchewan will be much happier to agree with the government regarding the structure of oil prices in this country. There are many other grievances that we in the prairies have. We produce raw materials, we produce food, and we export raw materials to central Canada and the United States. We do this largely because of the lack of an industrial strategy in the country, because of deficiencies in our freight rate system in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, and also because of the type of hinterland philosophy that exists in northern Ontario, north eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. If the government wants us to make a contribution with regard to oil, they will have to listen to some of our grievances. After all, that oil is a non-renewable resource. How much more oil do we have in Saskatchewan? You cannot grow oil on trees. That oil is in the ground, not for some bureaucrats or federal politicians in Ottawa or for some oil company executives to decide where it should go and who should get the profits. The oil was there for the people of this country and particularly for the people of Saskatchewan. I think that the oil should be used for the welfare and benefit of that province. There can be an argument over how much the federal government gets and how much the provinces get. I admit that it is a difficult problem to resolve, but I want to remind hon. members that under the constitution of this country land and resources such as gas and oil are under provincial jurisdiction. So long as they are under provincial jurisdiction I do not think we should have a bill such as the one before us today that tries unilaterally, without any consultation, to bring in measures that will take from the provinces much of their taxation power which they rightfully have. As the former Liberal cabinet minister, both federal and provincial, Eric Kierans, said the other day -- this matter was brought up in the House a while ago -- if this clause passes, the federal government will take from the provinces much of the taxation power they need in order to plan their provincial economies and their social programs. I think Mr. Kierans is very knowledgeable about resources. Obviously he was knowledgeable when he sat in the House and when he sat in the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec, so what he is saying about resources is certainly valid. Let me go back to the specific issue of non-deductibility. I have a difficult time comprehending why the government is going ahead with this provision. Royalties are a proper business expense, and if you can deduct other business expenses, why can you not deduct royalties? I think that the only reason that the federal government is disallowing deductibility of royalties is that they are afraid the provincial governments, regardless of the party in power, will tax the resource companies too highly. It seems to me strange that you can allow the deduction of a royalty paid to the Hudson's Bay Company, the CPR or a foreign government, but you cannot allow deduction of the royalty of the people of Saskatchewan. I think it is like telling a farmer who rents land that he cannot deduct payments made to his landlord. He can do that in accounting his income tax, but an oil company cannot do it in accounting theirs. It is also like telling a farmer who owns land that he cannot deduct from his income tax returns the municipal tax he paid to his local municipality. Both of those are legitimate operating business expenses and that is how they should be viewed. There are a number of other points that could be made. A number of us have made the point that the premiers of some provinces have been unhappy about this provision being put forward unilaterally. I think all the premiers in this country would agree that that is so. I can quote at length from a speech made by the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Blakeney, in which he documents letters he received from the Prime Minister, as well as from statements made by premier Lougheed. If the Prime Minister did raise this issue at the meeting, then it seems to me very strange that not one premier realized what he was talking about. Perhaps all the premiers in this country have bad hearing, but I would be surprised if that were so. It seems to be strange that the Prime Minister is the only person who recalls what happened at the meeting in March as well as at the meeting back in January. So I appeal once again to the Minister of Finance that he consider seriously the proposal put forward in the House a week ago by the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre, and more recently by the hon. member for Qu'appelle-Moose Mountain, that we split the bill or that we move a simple amendment, such as we did to the Foreign Investment Review Act, that the government have the authority to proclaim this section after the first ministers' meeting. Then the minister can go to the meeting and say to the premiers that the government is willing to negotiate to try to arrive at a decent price for oil, that the government is willing to make fiscal or taxation arrangements that will be acceptable to all Canadians. If the minister does not do that, he will heighten suspicion in this country and increase the economic discrimination that we have known for so many years. As other hon. members have said in this debate, it is not just this particular issue that is important but also the future development of the oil industry. As all of us know, the Syncrude consortium is exempt from many of the provisions that are in the bill before us today. It seems to me that it is very unfortunate that one consortium should be exempted while other companies are not, because there will be many other companies wanting to develop the tar sands. If we allow tax exemptions for some of them, we will have to consider exemptions for others. In discussing this clause we should also consider Syncrude. Just this morning I read a report in the newspaper that in the study that was commissioned by the Alberta government it is stated that the cost of Syncrude will go up to $2.91 billion. It was $2 billion eight or nine days ago. How much will that project cost? How much will we have to pay from the federal treasury or the treasuries of Ontario or Alberta and still not maintain control over the development of the tar sands? These are questions that will have to be answered in this House. They are questions that not only those of us in the House are concerned about but that concern the people of Canada and the provincial governments which represent them. We are thinking now about the first ministers' meeting which is only two months away. I do not see why this government cannot delay this part of the bill for another two months. The oil will still be there. As I said at the outset, as a person coming from Saskatchewan, a province that traditionally has below the national average in terms of income, we would be very happy to accept a lower price for our oil if in return we had a quid pro quo or trade-off that would benefit Saskatchewan. If we had some kind of trade-off or a better deal on the materials we need for production, then we would be much more willing to sell oil at a lower price or be more conciliatory in terms of our negotiations with Ottawa. I think these are very serious arguments which should be looked at in a serious way. We have a country now where there is no planning, where there is no forethought whatsoever, where people are living in two or three large cities, where they live in urban sprawl conditions without proper transportation and with all kinds of urban pollution. There are people in those cities who do not want more urban growth, and yet we have regions of this country like the prairies, the Atlantic provinces, the northern parts of Canada and eastern Quebec which could use more growth. These are areas where the raw materials could be processed, and this growth would make a lot more sense for all Canadians in those areas as well as people living in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. I look forward to the Minister of Finance being very co-operative with this House and decent to the Canadian people and separating this bill, or making some kind of accommodation so that the first ministers in April can sit down with the Prime Minister with a deck which is not stacked, which does not have a joker inside it. I look forward to the Minister of Finance exhibiting that leadership in this House. If he does not do that, then perhaps the hon. member for Timiskaming was right when he said this bill may not pass for three or four months. Mr. Chairman, I answered the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain yesterday on his proposal, and it can be found at page 3163 of Hansard, but I tabled an amendment which I said I would introduce at this stage. It is a technical amendment adding the words "by a taxpayer" to line 22 on page 4. Without those words the ownership of the Canadian resource property was not identified with any person. I would like to move an amendment, and I am going to rely on Beauchesne, citation 204 (2), which I think will save the time of the House. The amendment has already been tabled, but the motion is: That clause 4 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out line 22 on page 4 and substituting the following: "ownership by a taxpayer of a Canadian resource" (b) by striking out line 42 on page 5 and substituting the following: "6, 1974 to November 18, 1974 paragraph" (c) by striking out line 33 on page 6 of the French version and substituting the following: " sonnablement être considéré comme dépendant de la production au Canada ". Shall the amendment carry? Agreed. I just wondered whether the minister could perhaps explain the amendment. It is very difficult to get the purport of it when I have not seen a written version. We tabled the amendment, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that it is merely a technical one. Unless the words "by a taxpayer" are added, there is no way of attributing the taxability to anyone. It is merely a technical amendment. It does not change the substance at all, I can assure the hon. gentleman of that. Maybe that is the way it should be, John, attributing it to no one. If the hon. gentleman wants some good legal advice he can turn to the hon. member for Broadview. You will recall the advice I was giving was that advice is only worth what you pay for it. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the necessity of inserting "by a taxpayer" arises from the fact that, in the case of some Crown corporations, they are not going to be taxpayers and therefore are exempt from these particular provisions. Was it inserted for the purpose of exempting some Crown corporations or people or organizations who do not pay taxes? Mr. Chairman, this does not deal with that particular problem. That is hypothetical. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. If you are dealing with the amendment I will rise later. Let us deal with the amendment and then allow the debate to continue. Could we have the question on the amendment, Mr. Chairman? Agreed. Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Mr. Chairman-- You are driving your own boys out, Benjie. I know. Mr. Chairman, my own boys have to go through this much more often than hon. members opposite. This clause is obviously the most contentious one in the whole bill. I was hoping that members from all sides of this House would start thinking a little further about things like confederation and national unity. This has not been the case to date. I am hopeful that my good and hon. friends to my right who come from all provinces in this country will take some part in the debate on this particular issue unless -- and I hate to say this -- their priorities are more on the side of multinational oil companies than they are on Canada's confederation and national unity. If they do care about what confederation is all about, then what is being attempted in clause 4 flies in the face of what they and hon. members on the government side have been saying since 1867. Saskatchewan is perhaps one of the "Johnnie-come-lately" provinces in this country, but it still happens to believe that the provinces own their natural resources and are custodians of those resources. On behalf of the residents of their provinces they have the right to charge a reasonable -- I repeat for the benefit of the Minister of Finance, a reasonable" -- or fair market value for the extraction and exploitation of the resources that lie within their boundaries, particularly those resources that are exploited by the private sector. It does not matter if the minister has left or not; I am going to say what I have to say although I would rather he were here. He can read. I find him to be a very fine fellow to discuss things with, although overly stubborn. I have always worried about him because even when he knows he is wrong he has a great deal of difficulty in reaching an accommodation. If I may return to my main point, this matter of accommodation and discussion and agreement is an essential part of a nation that is a federation of provinces. Let us look at what a fair share is. There are some wells in Saskatchewan that produce only ten, 20 or 30 barrels of oil per day. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley can confirm this because some of them are in his riding. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance talk about fair shares but let us see what happens in cases like this. The international price of the oil is $10.62. The federal government takes export tax of $4.70 so that leaves $5.92. Take 60 cents per barrel lifting costs and you have $5.32 left. The federal corporation tax is $1.47, so there is $3.85 left. Then come provincial royalties of $3.04, which is 28 per cent compared to the 58 per cent the federal government has already taken. After that there is the provincial share of income tax, another 27 cents per barrel. The net back to the producer, Mr. Chairman, is 54 cents on that barrel of crude oil. The Minister of Finance can talk all he likes about fair market value and fair sharing, but the figures I have come from both federal and provincial authorities. The minister and his officials feel that 58.1 per cent for the federal government out of the price of that barrel of oil is unfair sharing. The provincial government gets 31 per cent and we are left with a net takeback of 5.2 per cent for the oil companies, which I feel is more than sufficient. When the Minister of Finance is lying in bed looking at the ceiling tonight, wondering what to do next with this particular clause, I should like him to think again about fair sharing and the 80 million to 100 million barrels of oil produced in the province of Saskatchewan in any given year. Saskatchewan and Alberta agreed on a national price of $6.50 per barrel. This has cost Saskatchewan $200 million in annual exports, and the $6.50 per barrel domestic price meant that we gave up for the benefit of Canadians -- which we are not complaining about -- another $200 million. Surely, Madam Chairman, that is a fair and reasonable share from the province of Saskatchewan. I am informed by my note senders that there is some disposition to stand this clause until tomorrow; I suspect that is because they all know I will not be here. I know I have almost used up my 20 minutes, and I have another 40 minutes worth to go yet. However, I want to close on a more serious note and add to what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said yesterday and what I and others said earlier. If they do not do that, we shall run into a great deal of difficulty in months ahead. I hope the minister will agree to standing this clause. Let it lie in abeyance for several months, until federal and provincial ministers arrive at a mutually agreeable understanding which is not confined merely to words. Let it be acted on by both sides, and let federal and provincial ministers understand the agreement before they head back to their respective governments. Otherwise, misunderstandings can arise again. Unless something like this is done, we shall run into great difficulties in future. Madam Chairman, I wonder if the minister would consider standing this clause this evening so that we may all reflect on it. Madam Chairman, I am agreeable to standing clause 4, subclauses (1), (2) and (5), which relate to the matters we are talking about. I hope we can deal with subclauses (3) and (4), which deal with other matters. I understand that the hon. member for Edmonton West wishes to raise a question relating to subclause (3). Madam Chairman, subclause (3) does not deal with royalties, it deals with the accrued interest of financial corporations and would implement paragraph 18 of the income tax motion. It is a tidying up provision, but I suspect the effect on financial institutions will be stringent. I wish to make two points. We often ask the minister why he is bringing in a proposal. The explanatory notes are thus not explanatory notes, as they do not detail reasons for changes. Since when has the principal business of a life insurance corporation been the borrowing of money? Surely a life insurance corporation carries on the business of life insurance. Is the payment of a premium by an insured who is, in Canada, a mutual shareholder, considered as the making of a loan to the company? How can the principal business of a life insurance company be the making of loans? Of course, I am referring to definitions. Perhaps I am denser than some others, but to my way of thinking in no way does the definition, as contained in the explanatory note, of a life insurance corporation fit the definition of a financial corporation. I wonder if the definition to which the hon. member is referring might not be considered as reading this way: "... include a taxpayer that is a bank, credit union, life insurance corporation, trust company or any other corporation that borrows money from the public in the course of carrying on a business the principal purpose of which is the making of loans, or whose principal business is the making of loans." In other words, it is every corporation to which that principal relates. In that sense I think the hon. gentleman can be relieved of his anxiety. Madam Chairman, I do not agree with the minister's interpretation. If I may paraphrase, the meaning of this definition is this. A financial corporation may be a life insurance corporation that borrows money from the public in the course of carrying on a business the principal purpose of which is the making of loans, or whose principal business is the making of loans. Is this not another way of saying that a financial corporation may be a life insurance corporation that borrows for these purposes? What kind of life insurance corporation carries on that kind of business? Madam Chairman, according to my interpretation, the qualifying phrase is "any other corporation." I will confer again with the Department of Justice to make sure that my interpretation is right. I have been advised surreptitiously that we cannot stand a subclause. We are standing the entire clause. But I will check the hon. gentleman's point. Is it agreed that we stand clause 4? Agreed. Clause 4 stands. On clause 5. Madam Chairman, I wish to move an amendment, which I have circulated and tabled. It would amend lines 5 to 11 on page 7 of the bill of the French translation, and make it correspond with the English version. I move: That clause 5 of the French version of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out lines 5 to 11 on page 7 and substituting the following: Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. On clause 6. Mr. Chairman, the part of the act to which this clause relates deals with depreciable property. The amendment, however, talks about a timber resource property of a taxpayer. Why has this change been introduced? Why has this change been made with regard to the disposition of depreciable property of a prescribed class? Is this provision limited to timber property? Madam Chairman, I am advised that this is the reason, that during the past few years, because of changes in licensing techniques and arrangements and cutting rights for timber, the existing income tax regulations have proven to be inadequate in providing for the amortization of the cost of timber rights, or cutting rights, and for the recovery of depreciation through amortization of subsequent dispositions. We need this authorization to provide for a substantial amendment to the income tax regulations which will provide for a rate of depreciation of 15 per cent on the reducing balance of timber resource property. In other words, the techniques and new techniques have outgrown the existing regulations. We need a wider authority. Is it to allow the regulations to be brought up to date, or are they just merely muddying the water much more? The language is difficult. It is not the best Shakespearean prose we can devise, but it does not change the burden of the tax one way or another. It just extends the present situation in new words because of the changing arrangements of the leasing of timber rights and cutting rights for timber. On that point, when was the general classification of the depreciable property of a prescribed class changed merely to a timber lease? Are there not sand and gravel leases which might come under the same category? After all, a sand and gravel lease is a depreciable property in the same way as a timber lease. We have not had the same innovation in gravel leases as we have had in timber leases. These were representations to us from certain quarters. National Revenue. No, from the industry. The regulations were no longer effective because of the new arrangements. I have an amendment, Madam Chairman, which I have tabled and circulated to all quarters of the House. The purpose of the amendment is to amend line 48 on page 13. It merely corrects the French translation to correspond with the English. I move: That clause 6 of the French version of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out line 48 on page 13 and substituting the following: " avant le1er juillet 1975 ou non payé conformément au " (b) by striking out line 21 on page 16 and substituting the following: "(10) Subsection 13(7.1) of the said Act as enacted by subsection (4) is applicable in respect" and (c) by striking out line 27 on page 16 and substituting the following: "assistance, and subsection 13(8) of the said Act as enacted by subsection (4) is applicable for the 1974 and subsequent taxation years." That has already been circulated. Agreed. Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Shall clause 6, as amended, carry? Frankly, what are sections of the act affect a number of subsections throughout the Income Tax Act. The subject matter can be as different as candies and cows. We have just been talking about timber leases. We are going into all sorts of things. I am going to ask seriatim why there are these changes. " That is what I want to know. I will be guided by the committee. Just explaining clause 6(2), the expropriation and insurance proceeds, the revised subsection 13(4) of the act is a relieving amendment providing that recaptured depreciation which is normally added back to a taxpayer's income at the time of expropriation of the property or destruction of the property will not be taxed until the taxpayer's proceeds are finally determined by a court or competent authority and received. Subclause (3) deals with undepreciated capital cost. It is a new section 13(7)(e). It is a technical rule which establishes the time when undepreciated capital cost is to be calculated whenever a property is lost, destroyed or expropriated. It is consequential to subclause (2) of clause 18 of the bill. In other words, you have to take a point in time as to when theoretically the undepreciated capital cost is calculated. It relates to subclause (3), expropriation. With regard to clause 6(4), this amendment adds a new subsection 13(7.1) to the act. First, it clarifies the forms of government assistance that will reduce the capital cost of depreciated property. Second, it clarifies that a reduction in capital cost will also apply to reduce the adjusted cost base of the property for all purposes of the act, particularly in the calculation of capital gains or losses. This amendment is also relieving, but provides that in calculating capital cost of depreciating property after 1971, any payments before or after that time of the particular government assistance concerned will produce an increase in capital cost. Subclause (8) is all right; it is consequential. Subclauses (5) and (6) provide for an extension of one year for the reinvestment of proceeds and disposition of commercial investment. The hon. member is familiar with that. It is a further extension. Why do we get into this habit of yearly extensions? It is like the Customs Tariff Act. I have been looking at the customs tariff for 15 years. Year by year we have been relieving against the imposition of duties on aircraft engines under a certain weight. Why do we not eliminate it altogether? For 15 years we have been going through this charade. I hope we are not starting the same here. Madam Chairman, I wish to ask the minister if the position of the lumberman has changed in respect to the amount of tax he will have to pay as a result of this change in the act. The answer is it extends the regulation making authority to incorporate new styles of leases and timber cutting and timber leasing. On balance, it is probably a relieving measure. Is a stumpage fee paid to the crown or the government of a particular province considered a royalty, and is it an expense of a lumberman? At the moment stumpage is considered as an expense and is deductible. The Minister says "at the moment". After this bill is passed, will it still be an expense? Yes, Madam Chairman. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to. On clause 7 : Royalties, etc. Madam Chairman, because of the decision made on clause 4, I am just wondering whether clause 7 should stand. I would agree to that, but I should like to get a technical amendment out of the way and then stand it, if hon. members would agree. Again, I have circulated this amendment. It is a technical amendment at line 31 on page 17. It adds the words: "property, or a property that would have been a Canadian resource property if it had been acquired after 1971, or" These words are necessary since by definition a Canadian resource property is a property that was acquired after 1971 and this provision is intended to apply to all properties whether acquired before or after 1971. Then the amendment goes on to relate to lines 18 and 19 on page 20, adding the words "or the fair market value of any property". It is necessary to include these words refering to the fair market value of any property paid or payable as well as amounts paid. It is merely technical, it does not interfere with the substance. In the light of those explanations I therefore move: That clause 7 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out line 31 on page 17 and substituting the following: "property, or a property that would have been a Canadian resource property if it had been acquired after 1971, or" and (b) by striking out lines 18 and 19 on page 20 and substituting the following: "(5) Subsection (1) is applicable to amounts paid or payable or the fair market value of any property paid or payable after May 6, 1974 in respect of" Carried. Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. I have one posted for that area. I think so. Did you make it? I do not think so. Yes. At line 21? Yes, we got that. Have you made it? It was carried. It has not been moved. That is in clause 6. But it was not moved. We are on clause 7, now. I know. Clause 6, as amended, was carried. Then there was an almost completely new paragraph or subparagraph at line 21 on page 16. I was not aware that the minister had read that out or that it had been moved and accepted. Yes, it was. I did not give an explanation of it, though I am prepared to do so. It does not matter about the explanation. I just wanted to make sure it had been dealt with. Shall clause 7, as amended, stand? Madam Chairman we have no objection to clause 7 being stood, especially since it relates to the royalty provisions, but before we do so would the minister give us an explanation concerning carrying costs for development land which are found in clause 7? Many of us on this side of the House believe this provision will result in serious damage to the housing industry. The intention may be good but it seems to have been put together in the minds of civil servants who are totally lacking in knowledge as to operations in the real estate field. They hope to bring on stream land for the development of homes, but I do not believe this would be the result. In fact, I believe it would hinder the development of land for housing by driving up the value of lots. Would the minister tell us why he is maintaining this arrangement with respect to the carring cost of development land? Well, Madam Chairman, I gave a fairly full explanation on two successive budget nights. The hon. member is aware of the existence of a land speculation tax in Ontario. I do not know whether he wants to attribute that tax to bureaucrats in Queen's Park. In any event, this was a conscious political decision. The thinking behind the amendment is that the incidence of such carring costs will make land banking more expensive and encourage developers to bring land on to the market more quickly. The intention is to counteract speculation in land, to decrease the amount of land being held for speculative purposes, and thereby to increase the supply of land brought to the marketplace. This tax will now be added to the inventory cost of land and will only become deductible in the year the land is disposed of or at the time a building is constructed. In other words, costs are not allowed while the land is held for speculation or is not brought on to the marketplace. They will be allowed as a legitimate inventory expense when the land is developed or when a building is put up. Has the minister given consideration to making the wording of the clause clearer so that it is evident it applies to speculators and not to true land developers? We have reviewed this very carefully in the light of a good many representations from those interested in the business of real estate. We find it extremely difficult to define a speculator or to separate him or her from land developers. Moreover, we are not only trying to catch the speculator; we are trying to force development land on to the market. If it is a question of forcing development land on to the market or forcing a speculator on to the land market, I think the minister is just whistling Dixie. At the end of the road, when the land is sold, at a higher value because it is being developed, all these costs that pile up during the years are added to the inventory costs. So what is the difference? A higher price is obtained in the end. There may be a capital gain. The inventory cost is a deduction as far as computation of capital gain for income tax purposes is concerned. Madam Chairman, I must commend the Minister of Finance on this clause. I am sure he has had the experience of many of us in respect of what is happening concerning land speculation in this country. The evidence is quite clear from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation -- not from private corporations or studies -- that land around the main cities across the country, such as Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary and Vancouver, is controlled by about five or six large land-holding companies. This is the evidence of CMHC, as I am sure the Minister of State for Urban Affairs agrees. He is familiar with that situation and has attempted to obtain the release of some of that land so the price will drop and it will become available for building purposes. I recall hearing the hon. member for York Centre and others make a tearful plea to the minister on second reading, suggesting that these expenses should be allowed. These land speculators across the country have milked the public of a tremendous amount of money because of the price of land, and they have been able to take advantage of these provisions in respect of deducting these costs, with the result that they have paid little or nothing in the form of taxes. When I look at the profit and loss sheets of companies like Cadillac in Toronto, I am saddened, particularly when I note that these companies have made millions of dollars and have not paid a penny in tax. I must give the minister credit for this clause, and I would like to see the Minister of State for Urban Affairs rise in his seat and support the minister in this regard. Perhaps he could outline what the impact would be if much of this land was released across the country. That minister is concerned with the situation. He realizes that his reputation is at stake. He is aware of the 17 per cent drop in housing starts in 1974, and he has suggested that the target for 1975 is 210,000 housing starts. I am sure he must feel that this will be difficult to achieve. This is one step the minister has taken to alleviate the situation. I suggest it is a necessary step and I would like the minister to explain to the House the impact of this legislation. Before I give the minister any credit I should like him to clarify one point. I listened to his explanation about this clause and what it was supposed to do, and then I listened to the hon. member for Edmonton West. I am wondering if what the minister is accomplishing by this clause is postponing these write-offs until the land comes on the market rather than letting the holders of the land write off the costs each year. Is the minister not allowing them to accumulate the write-offs so that when the land does come on the market they will be able to write off those accumulated costs? I should like the minister to tell us if that is in fact what is happening. Can these people write off the accumulated costs when the land is sold? This is a legitimate cost of doing business, and I refer to carrying charges; but these are not deductible for income tax purposes until the land is put on the market. I should like to ask the minister whether, if this land appreciates, when it is sold the owner can write off all the costs. It may or it may not, but since the cost of carrying it in interest and taxes is not deductible, the pressure is on the developers to put the land on the market. Madam Chairman, it is always very interesting to hear comments from the NDP. I think we have just had an illustration of how those people talk about something they know nothing about. The hard fact is that this clause is not going to catch the speculator, as the minister suggests. It is not going to catch those demons the NDP envisage. It is going to catch the relatively small homebuilder in this country who builds 90 per cent of the homes. Surely the Minister of Finance is not so naive as to accept from his advisers the suggestion that, because these taxes will now be charged against the carrying costs of the land, somehow the builders are suddenly going to sell the land. That is ridiculous rot. That is not going to happen. Most developers do not carry their land because they want to; they carry it because of a lot of governmental red tape at all levels. Governments are not inclined to open up land for development, and to suggest that because a man is carrying 50 acres or 100 acres for future development-- That's not the small homebuilder. All right, let us take the man who is holding ten acres. Make it one. Does the hon. member want to make a speech? Would the hon. member accept a question? I would like to hear the hon. member's comments about city parking land in Toronto, the holder of which is the largest landowner in the country. That land is all tied up in parking lots and the government has now used the provisions in the tax laws to stop this holder from writing off his expenses while he holds that land, during which time the land increases in value. I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on that. Madam Chairman, of course I am not familiar with the wealthy friends of whom my hon. friend speaks, but if he feels his wealthy friends in the city parking operation are doing something in respect of which the law should be changed, I suggest that by all means he should make that recommendation to the Minister of Finance. While the minister is attempting to stop that, I would urge him not to do something at the same time which would kill the building of homes in this country. The hon. member may represent a downtown Toronto riding and not know this fact, but I would suggest to him that home prices in this country are out of the reach of the average would-be homeowner, and this is partly due to the inept actions of this federal government. It is mostly because of its actions, or the lack of them, that we have this problem in the country. I simply suggest that if the minister takes a careful look at the suggestion proposed he will find it is going to complicate home building in this country rather than relieve it. Let's hear from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I would certainly yield the floor to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, because I am curious to know whether he has been tainted by the same ridiculous attitude concerning home building that is generally reflected by clause 7 of this bill. I am also anxious to hear from the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for York-Simcoe made reference to the individual homeowner and the damage that this clause will do to him. I should like to ask the minister to elaborate in greater detail for my edification, as well as that of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, on the clause as it relates to the individual homeowner who has owned the lot for X number of years before building his home. Will this clause hurt him or not? Before the minister answers the question may I point out that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who has a very intimate knowledge of this subject, is here. Perhaps he could explain to us the impact of this clause and what happened prior to introducing it. How much tax does Cadillac and some of the companies in Toronto pay as a result of taking advantage of the clause? Madam Chairman, the answer to the hon. member's question is that the homeowner who has his own lot cannot write it off because he is not in business, so there are no penalties on the homeowner at all. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre can draw his own conclusion as to what the hon. member for York-Simcoe was trying to say. Madam Chairman, I had not intended to speak on this clause this evening, but after listening to some of the comments, I have come to the conclusion that this is certainly an issue that concerns me. As I listen to the debate going back and forth, the gist of what I am getting is that land will be more available and somewhat cheaper for prospective home owners. Certainly it appears on the surface to be a very positive move and we must give it some support. I understand this relates to agricultural land. There is an assumption in Canada that we have lots of good soil in our country. The fact of the matter is that the cultural way in which Canada has developed has put our citizens where the best soil is to be found. One can ask how it is that some of the larger cities in the prairies, such as Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Lethbridge, Red Deer and Edmonton, are all built right in the middle of old geological lake beds. Everyone of those cities is built right on silted out soil; almost all of them are on soil internationally rated at from one to seven, right in the middle of class one and two soils. We assume in this country that Canada has all kinds of food producing resources. But the fact of the matter is that if Canada's population continues to increase at the projected rate -- and I am now quoting a soil scientist -- this country will have great difficulty in feeding itself by the year 2000. In the United States they lose more agricultural land, almost 100,000 acres of soil a year that is good agricultural land. If we take a look at the Niagara Peninsula, the Okanagan Valley, and the shore lines along the various coasts, while I appreciate the fact that an attempt is made to try to make land available, the very fact that this provision is being put forth by the minister will create a tremendous negative factor in our society. If I can get the minister's attention I should like to ask him whether or not any consideration has been given in the cabinet to protection of land, so that we do not continually use for housing and development the small amount of agricultural soil that is left. There is a good deal of concern in the cabinet about the gradual erosion for urban purposes of our agricultural land, relating primarily to zoning laws and usage of land laws within provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and others have been in touch with their provincial counterparts to see what can be done on a national basis to preserve agricultural land. This is primarily a provincial responsibility. Through our demographic and urbanization policies we will do whatever we can to supplement wise provincial use of land. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the main part of the minister's response when he said that, generally speaking, soil and other resources are under provincial jurisdiction. But I would like to put this question to the minister: If that is a provincial resource, then what is happening with the projected airport at Pickering? More important, with the decision that has already been made, obviously within federal jurisdiction, what is being done about the airport in Edmonton? When they decided to build a satellite airport there, they chose three sites. When it was narrowed down to two, one of those sites was on 45 per cent class seven soil and on 50 per cent class six soil. One of those is considered non-agricultural, the other is non-improvable permanent pasture. But the site they finally chose was all on class one and two soil. This is a federal responsibility. The amount of land that was used up amounted to 1,444 acres, and there is no one who knows anything about agriculture who can claim that that is an insignificant amount of soil. I think that the federal government certainly has an obligation to pursue programs which encourage building and so on, but I am curious what specific federal thrusts there are in this development. The hon. member sounds very knowledgeable about the subject. I find I can always learn something here, Madam Chairman, even as ten o'clock approaches. I would think that the federal Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport and the Department of Urban Affairs, in so far as land banking is concerned, should take what the hon. member has said as a prime consideration, namely, the preservation where possible, as a priority, of our prime rural soil for agricultural purposes. So without pretending in any way that I can fully appreciate the facts that he has brought before the committee, let me say that he has a point. I want to take the opportunity to express my thanks to the minister for taking this point into consideration. I want simply to add the following comment. Obviously the federal and provincial governments would not allow any kind of development over any other resource that is so important to us. For instance, we would not build cities over iron, over tar sands or over nickel mines. But at a time when the emphasis is on the production of food to feed the hungry of the world, and when we think of the fact that there are only two sources of food, soil and water, we must take account of the statistics before us and pay far greater attention to the use of good soil for agricultural purposes. I appreciate the response of the minister that that matter will be considered. Shall Clause 7 stand? Agreed. I wish to speak on clause 7 as amended just as long as it is not stood. I do not wish it to stand. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House. Madam Speaker, I rise on what I call a point of order simply because there have been many discussions tonight as to what we might be doing tomorrow. Even though some of us may know, could it be announced so that everyone will know? I know how much the hon. member and his party enjoy this bill, so I think we will continue with Bill C-49 tomorrow. A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved. Madam Speaker, yesterday I raised with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) the matter concerning the attempted sale of a major portion of the ownership of Canadian National hotels to a new company in which the Hilton hotel chain and the Trizec Corporation are involved. The minister in his final answer said: There is no doubt in my mind that CN cannot make a deal with the hotels without the approbation of the Government of Canada. I find it incredible that CN and Air Canada, which are both publicly owned corporations, would even consider dealing away, let alone attempt to deal away, a large portion of the properties which it is their responsibility to operate on behalf of the owners, the people of Canada. It is bad enough that these Crown corporations would attempt to turn publicly owned property over to private corporations, but surely it is even worse when those private corporations are foreign owned. This proposed deal is symptomatic of the sickness which pervades our whole transportation system. Our transportation companies, even the Crown corporations in transportation, remain insensitive to our legitimate needs and our proper national goals. The fact that the government would let the CNR even take part in discussions to turn over publicly owned property to foreign corporations shows again its supine loyalty to the foreign owners of much of Canada's economy. If the Canadian National Railways need better management of its hotels, it should hire whatever expertise is required and not do it by depleting publicly owned Canadian assets. If Air Canada needs assured hotel accommodation in other countries, there are other and much better methods of acquiring it than through the deal they have proposed. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he or his minister has been party to, or had prior knowledge of, a Crown corporation attempting to sell off a major share of the ownership of publicly owned property to form private corporations for their own internal requirements without the knowledge of, or having consultation with, the government or parliament of Canada. I suspect that is the case, Mr. Speaker. Hilton Hotels Ltd. and Trizec Corporation may be very good operators in the corporate sense, but they need not have been invited into a deal with Canadian National. I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that a Canadian owned hotel chain made inquiries of Canadian National and Air Canada to arrange for assured hotel accommodation for their customers, but got short shrift. Why is there this sudden rush by Canadian National, a Crown corporation, to sell properties that Canadian taxpayers have paid for? The daily press in Montreal and the employees of the two corporations involved are to be congratulated for bringing this matter to the attention of the public. They were wise enough to look behind what was going on. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), although he is a nice fellow, was allowing this to go on and I find this particularly disturbing. That he did not instruct the management not to make this kind of deal is particularly disturbing and I hope the parliamentary secretary can tell us this evening that these corporations have been so instructed. Mr. Speaker, first of all, to allay some of the fears expressed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), there is no truth, of course, to the inference or charge that public property such as Canadian National hotels will be given away or turned over completely to foreign corporations. As the hon. member is undoubtedly aware, the CNR has statutory authority to operate hotels and indeed may manage them as they see fit, again subject to statutory obligations. I believe that representations have been made by Skyline Hotels, a Canadian chain, on this matter to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and other ministers of the Crown. I am sure that all Canadians are very interested in the developments surrounding discussions which have taken place in this respect. The Canadian National has taken steps to examine alternative management proposals for the CN hotels and these proposals include possible participation by Air Canada. As I am sure the hon. member knows, the experience of several major foreign air lines has shown that considerable commercial advantages are possible if an air line is able to offer prospective passengers a service which includes hotel reservations at their destination. To some extent, I suppose, a hotel chain is more useful to an air line today than to a railroad. As the hon. member is aware, I am sure, the CN has management contracts with Hilton for the hotels in both Vancouver and Montreal. The results of this association have been satisfactory. But this does not imply that the Hilton Company is taking over the management of other CN hotels. The government is aware of the concerns expressed over a possible proposal for a change in the management of the CN hotels and has conveyed these concerns to the company. Should the CN decide that some alternative method of management of its hotels is in the best interests of ensuring that Canadians will be able to continue to benefit from the public investment, the company will bring forth its proposals for the government's consideration. At that time the government will ensure that Canadian employees, institutions and Canadian investments are adequately protected. Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m. Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.14 p.m. The House met at 11 a.m. Mr. Speaker, I know that it is unusual to interrupt the business of the House at this time, but I feel that all members would wish to join me in remembering our late friend and fellow parliamentarian, Arthur Laing. All of us would wish to express not only our very real sadness and sense of loss at this time, but also our great respect and affection for Art, to his wife and to his family. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself and my party with the remarks of tribute to Art Laing made by the government House leader. I had the good fortune of being in Nova Scotia in the early 1950s when Art Laing came there on occasion as a member of parliament. He certainly served his party well both provincially and federally. Although, as I have said, he was a good servant of his party, he was a man who was very fair and open in dealing with all Canadians whatever their political stripe might happen to be. I liked him very much and I would like to associate myself and my party with the tributes paid by the government House leader, and extend our sympathies to Mrs. Laing and the family. Mr. Speaker, when Arthur Laing first came to this House in 1949, those of us who were here immediately found him to be a most likeable person. As the years moved on, we came to like him even more. I think it is significant that we are departing slightly from our practice this morning by referring to him, because all of us want to pay our respects to our late friend and colleague. Indeed, the last one he held for only a few months, yet I suppose he is still remembered for the good job he did as Minister of Veterans Affairs. My colleagues and I are happy to join the government House leader and the Leader of the Opposition in paying our respects to Arthur Laing's memory and in extending our sympathy to his family. Mr. Speaker, although I did not have the pleasure of knowing the late Arthur Laing, on behalf of both my party and myself I wish to join the leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the representative of the NDP in offering his family our most sincere condolences. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House would permit me a moment or two just to add a few personal words about Arthur Laing. I had a long and close association with him, not least as his parliamentary secretary in this House for 2 1/2 years. Arthur Laing came from a pioneer British Columbia family. The Laing farm used to be on Sea Island next to the Grauer farm where the Vancouver airport is now situated. No one knew the province of British Columbia better than did Arthur Laing. He possessed warm qualities of integrity and sincerity, and no one who ever met him, even casually, failed to be impressed by those qualities. I think it is fair to say that as a politician he was unexcelled, particularly in the small towns and northern reaches of this country. He was a first-rate parliamentarian. He was very much at home in this House of Commons -- he loved this place. He defended three portfolios with remarkable success. I believe he is going to be missed, not only by a good many members of this House who knew him but by many, many people in this country. I add my sympathy to that expressed by the House leader and other hon. members who have spoken, for his widow Geraldine, his daughter Linda and the other members of the family. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might also be permitted to say just a few words. I would like to join the House leader in his words of tribute to Arthur Laing, and also the expressions of sympathy for Mrs. Geraldine Laing. I served as Mr. Laing's special assistant for almost three years during his term of office as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, from January, 1966, until the election of 1968. I wish to underline what was said by the Minister of Finance: Arthur Laing was a man whose integrity was unquestioned, as was his service and dedication to his country. He initiated a number of new policies during his term of office as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, when I was with him. He was particularly development conscious, not only of development of resources but development of people. He was very much concerned about this. During his term of office he often encouraged the Indian people, for instance, to get up on their hind legs, to start speaking and doing things for themselves. This sometimes got him into a bit of trouble, but his accomplishments during that period will long be remembered by his many friends. Mr. Speaker, as the present member for Vancouver South and one who ran against our friend Arthur Laing in the 1968 election and was soundly trounced because of his superior political abilities, I say with a great deal of sincerity that I am sure my colleagues from British Columbia would want to be associated with the tributes that have been made in this House today. I would also like to say -- I think I can say this on behalf of the electors of Vancouver South -- that our friend was regarded, through all the years he served that community, with great affection and great admiration. That affection was a rare thing and rose continually above the partisan political scene within which we find ourselves. I should like to end on a personal note, Mr. Speaker. It speaks very highly of him when I say he understood the political process and realized that people needed encouragement to enter this field. In this regard he rose beyond party and partisan politics. It is my very great privilege, Mr. Speaker, to endorse the comments that have been made and to express to Mrs. Laing and the family our deepest sympathy. Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege concerning a position taken by Air Canada which affects my rights as a member of this House and which I believe affects the rights of all members of the House. The episode started with an incident on Dominion Day, 1973, when the chief shop steward and a number of other employees at the power plant in Dorval were obliged to work on the national holiday by Air Canada. There was an exchange of correspondence between myself and the Minister of Transport as well as between other members of parliament and the ministers concerned. The final result was a Canada Labour Relations Board hearing on December 4, 1974. At Mr. Morrison's request I attended that hearing to lend him moral support. It was apparently my presence at the hearing as an onlooker that sparked Air Canada into making a formal representation to the Canada Labour Relations Board asking for a ruling which would forbid individuals with a complaint before that board to contact members of parliament. In other words, Air Canada, a Crown corporation, on December 4, 1974, made a formal request to the Canada Labour Relations Board for a ruling that persons making use of the board's services be prohibited from complaining to their members of parliament. The lawyer for Air Canada said: I still feel that at some point the board should pronounce itself on this issue. He went on to say: That interference from outside sources, and I am referring particularly to outside political sources, should try to influence the parties or the board in any fashion whatsoever is a practice which is probably not that new and yet I find it, as I have said before, (a) most objectionable and a pernicious practice which I think must be terminated. Now, whether the president of the board can do so with a decision or whether it would have been the intention of the board to even pronounce itself on this question and include remarks in its decision to that effect, I don't know. I would strongly suggest that this be the case. Later he said: I will insist that the board perhaps include some remarks in the decision on that ground. Since, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge neither the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), myself nor anyone else in parliament has made any representations to the Labour Relations Board, I can only conclude that the Air Canada representative was objecting to my presence as an onlooker and a moral supporter of Mr. Morrison at the Labour Relations Board hearing, and that he was objecting and asking for a ruling on the letters which I had written on Mr. Morrison's behalf to the Minister of Labour, to the Minister of Transport and to the executive assistant to the president of Air Canada. I must apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for the delay in raising this question of privilege. My office made two requests of the Labour Relations Board for a transcript of the hearing but was unable to get this transcript. Only after I was supplied with a tape of the hearing by the Labour Relations Board was I able to have a transcript made in my office from the tape which was eventually supplied to me. The issue would be serious enough if the representatives of a private corporation had objected to citizens contacting their member of parliament. But it is incredible that a federal Crown corporation should make a formal representation to the Canada Labour Relations Board for a ruling prohibiting citizens appearing before the board from contacting their members of parliament. Mr. Speaker, this is the most unbelievable episode I have come across since being elected to this House. Air Canada, in making this kind of representation, was acting not only in breach of the rights of all members of parliament but it was acting in contempt of parliament itself. I believe that there is a prima facie breach of privilege involved in this incident, and should Your Honour so rule I would be ready to move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). Mr. Morrison is one of my constituents -- I say this to show the relevance of my being involved in this matter -- has been coming to me regularly since my election in 1972. For the information of hon. members he, as shop steward, protested against excessive overtime being worked at Dorval. His position is supported by a letter from the Minister of Labour of November, 1972. This situation continued through 1973 to the mid-summer of that year when the incident to which the hon. member for Laprairie referred took place. The real issue facing us is not the matter itself which gave rise to the complaint before the board, but whether action has been taken which is discriminatory and is intended to influence not just the actions of the individual concerned but the actions of every other person in a similar position. I suggest that it must be clearly established as the right of everyone to be able to converse freely and without restriction with their members at all times. Hear, hear! I just want to add that in reviewing the voluminous correspondence on this subject, I do not find anything that would indicate any interference with the case itself. The question has always been one where we have been trying to obtain information to be able to assess for ourselves whether an individual is being fairly treated. It is on this basis that I support the motion of the hon. member for Laprairie. I suggest that possibly it might be better referred to the transport committee since the Ministry of Transport is also aware of the situation. At any rate, I will accept whatever decision Your Honour makes in this respect. I support the reference to a committee so that this matter can be fully studied and all persons will realize that in the future they will not be penalized if they take advantage of what I consider to be their right and privilege to discuss the subject with their member of parliament. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I certainly support the two government members. We have a similar problem in Winnipeg with the finance branch of Air Canada. Air Canada is not living up to union agreements dating back to 1973. The unions made representations to members of parliament and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) was asked about a month ago to intervene in that labour problem. Of course, the individual merits of the case concerning labour relations within Air Canada do not constitute the issue before us at this time. The issue is whether there has been an effort to interfere with the ability of a member of this House to function in his capacity as a member of the House of Commons. I propose to examine the matter and the precedents carefully, and will try to give a decision on Monday or Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This matter concerns the proposed airport at Pickering. In view of the fact Air Canada has now indicated that travel is slowing down on the airline, with consent I would move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek): That this House is of the opinion that the government, before making a decision with respect to building the Pickering airport, should provide this House with an opportunity to have a full debate on the question. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent that it be debated? I said "no" quite clearly. Carried. No. If the Speaker does not hear any opposition and goes ahead with the motion, it is too late for those who are sound asleep opposite to have a second bite at the apple. The hon. member who tells us he said "no" has that type of voice which as far as we are concerned in western Canada has not been heard since the buffalo ceased to roam. In all seriousness, once Your Honour went ahead with the reading, that was the end of the matter. Order, please. Not much can be served by further discussion. I had already asked whether it was the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, and I believe the hon. member is seeking to explain this motion. It is an extremely important matter, namely the price of butter and milk. Our children need those products. As far as I am concerned, I am just as sure as you are, Mr. Speaker, I heard absolutely nothing. You asked twice whether there was unanimous consent and nobody answered. Then I said: Agreed. And I want the House to abide by your ruling. Is the House ready for the question? I should like to rest assured that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when referring to my voice-- Louder. When referring to my voice, the right hon. member should recognize the human frailty of his own ears and not accuse me of not having answered, because I did. Call in the members. The House divided on the motion (Mr. Allard) which was negatived on the following division: I declare the motion defeated. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister advise the House the state of the negotiations between the Government of Canada and the general trades who are now in a position to strike? Does the minister intend to do everything possible to avoid a strike and so avoid the disturbance to the public who are absolutely defenceless in these matters and whose rights, frankly, are paramount of override certain private rights. Mr. Speaker, it is true that the union is in a position to strike. The employees have not gone on strike yet. The parties met yesterday and another meeting is scheduled for this afternoon. We are doing everything we can to settle the dispute. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister confirm that the union in question is voting on a new conciliation report which is being presented both to the government and to the employees in question? If so, when does he expect to know the result of that vote? Does he anticipate taking action to see that the designated employees carry out their obligations as designated employees and fulfil their obligations to the public? Mr. Speaker, at the present time, the parties are holding discussions. I have no comments to make. I hope they will come to an agreement. Such are the terms of the collective agreement. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Transport but I see he has left the House. I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. A Canadian Pacific Airlines flight on December 20 out of Amsterdam, with 130 passengers on board, was denied landing rights at Montreal because the snow clearance crews had gone on an illegal strike. The aircraft was diverted and was again denied landing rights at Toronto because of the illegal strike of snow clearance workers there. Then the aircraft was diverted to Ottawa and denied permission to land, but was finally allowed to land here after being held in a holding pattern. It was then held on the main runway for 40 minutes until the taxi strips could be cleared. As illegal strikes of ground service crews create potential dangers for passengers and aircrews, what does the minister propose to do to ensure the safety of passengers, aircrews and aircraft in such circumstances? Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the question, we were in touch with CP Air this morning and I am advised that they have not heard of the particular incident to which the hon. member refers. I remind him that at the time in question, Toronto and Ottawa airports were never shut down or in a non-operating state. If the hon. member would be good enough to inform me of the flight number, date and time, we could check into the matter further. Mr. Speaker, I will not only tell the parliamentary secretary the flight number and the time; I will tell him the name of the pilot as well so that he can make a thorough investigation. May I ask a supplementary question-- Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker, this is not the first incident of this kind. I suggest that the minister should recommend to the Minister of Justice an amendment to the Criminal Code which would make it a criminal offence for ground crew personnel to strike illegally in circumstances where such action would affect the safety of passengers, aircrews and aircraft in flight at the time of an illegal strike. Will the minister undertake to do that; or must we wait until there is a disaster before the government acts in this regard? Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that CP Air advised us this morning that they know nothing of the particular incident reported by the CBC. Until we either prove or disprove that the incident took place, I can only point out that the airports were operating. If the hon. member wishes to give us the details that he has, we will check with CP Air and try to determine the facts. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? In view of the assurances the minister gave to the hon. member for St. Boniface, to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and to me on December 11 that he would intervene in the dispute of the finance branch employees of Air Canada at Winnipeg and try to resolve the differences that still existed, and in view of the fact that this dispute is still a very serious one, can he tell the House what he has done about it, what were the results of his intervention, and if he will continue to make his good offices available to settle this dispute? Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that our mediation services have been working on this question. I cannot give an up to date report but I will endeavour to do so at the beginning of next week. In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with respect to the finance branch situation in Winnipeg, the latest report is that Air Canada has offered to open up the agreement to discuss classification, and we are now waiting for a reply from the union. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Given that in the last quarter of 1974 housing starts declined by 35 per cent, aggravating the unemployment situation because there were 220,000 fewer workers in the construction industry, is the minister now prepared to concede that his present grab bag of programs, including those in Bill C-46, will do little to alleviate this serious crisis? Also, are his plans to stimulate immediate growth and employment in the house construction industry in these winter months limited to those enunciated yesterday by the president of CMHC, that is, to plans which are a rehash of earlier, inadequate programs. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member asked her question in that way, because our programs are indeed innovative and designed to produce a good deal of additional housing in the coming year. I only wish the House would pass the legislation before it and that our friends opposite would not hold it up, so that we could get the houses built which the people of Canada want. Hear, hear! A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the program is intended to stimulate the construction of new housing, not all that much of which starts in January. Nevertheless, there are parts of the country where it can start and the new program will enable it to start. The hon. member should look behind him. The builders, lenders and purchasers are all ready to move as soon as we get through that legislation. Hear, hear! The minister did not see fit to answer the question. If the figure of 62,000 which the minister confidently predicted would qualify for the $500 grant is so far off base, with only one-hundredth of that figure qualifying in the first month, what assurance do we have that his prediction of 210,000 housing starts this year is not similarly inflated? Mr. Speaker, I put 210,000 as a floor for this year. If we relate the situation to that of our principal trading partner, it gives us great consolation because we are doing about 4 1/2 times as well as the United States in providing housing in this country. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, as a Darling I am certainly delighted to be recognized on Valentine's Day. Hear, hear! My question is supplementary to the darling of the press, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this sweetheart arrangement with the hon. member. If he will read the legislation and the opportunity this gives to Canadians, particularly young, low-income Canadians and first-time home owners, he will see there are a lot of provisions in the legislation. If we could only get it through the House, into committee and on the books we could get to work building the houses. I know the housing industry is ready to build. Thousands of Canadians across this country are most anxious to take advantage of these programs. I hope that out of the many thousands of houses the minister has promised for this year, a great many will be built in rural Canada and in small communities because we are the ones who are presently getting the short end of the stick. Mr. Speaker, that is a very high priority in our plans. I appreciate what the hon. member is suggesting. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the recommendation in Canada and the United States that in order to conserve energy there should be a direct thrust toward insulating homes, will there be any thrust under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program with regard to financing in the coming months? Mr. Speaker, this is part of RRAP. In response to the request of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am looking at further measures with regard to taking new initiatives to conserve energy in older homes as well as in new homes. Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour, to the Postmaster General or to the latter's Parliamentary Secretary. It appears that all coded mail is being boycotted in the Montreal post office. This large volume of mail items include numerous cheques addressed to unemployed people, cheques that are stuck there. Is the minister in a position to inform the House whether he intends to take steps to correct this situation so that unemployed people may receive their benefits? Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in problems of unemployment insurance, particularly the distribution of cheques. I will find out if there is any reason for unemployment insurance cheques being unnecessarily delayed. Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. In the case of the special program for Chilean refugees, information was requested on some of the applicants from these foreign intelligence agencies. I am not sure if the CIA was one or not. They could have been. The entry was decided by our people. I am under the impression that when it is necessary for us in Canada to obtain information, we may still ask for that information from the CIA and other foreign agencies, but it is in accordance with our policy and our law. In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will address my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has been reported that the Canadian Ambassador to Chile recently gave to General Augusto Pinochet, the military dictator in Chile, a series of gifts, including coloured illustrations of varieties of Canadian fish, and at the same time expressed the cordial greetings of the Government of Canada. While I appreciate the necessity for diplomatic courtesy, was it under the instruction of the Canadian government that Mr. Ross made this presentation and expressed these cordial greetings to one who is not only a dictator but who has presided over the destruction of fundamental rights in his country-- Order, please. The hon. member has described a presentation and asked whether it was made on instructions. That surely ought to be enough. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether our ambassador acted under instructions. I do think it is important in international relations, however, that the people of Chile and the government of Chile have a good view of democracy in Canada. Therefore, I think it is wise that we maintain these kinds of relationships. Mr. Speaker, I regret I was only able to give the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a couple of hours' notice of this question. Can the minister inform the House whether any special emergency measures will be implemented to speed up the processing of unemployment insurance claimed by the workers of the General Motors, Oshawa, plant who were laid off in January? Some of these workers have been back on the job for a few days now but are still waiting for their original claims to be processed. It is correct there was a lay-off on January 10, I believe, of some 8,000 workers, a very large number of people. As of this week, all the claimants who registered at that time are in receipt of reporting cards and the process is taking place. Registration, of course, does not of itself trigger the reporting cards, though this, I believe, was the information I got from the hon. member's office today. There certainly was a slight delay in issuing some cards because of the number of claimants. I would add that where there are to be lay-offs of any magnitude at all it would be very helpful if employers were to take us into their confidence in advance so that we could make these unfortunate situations as palatable as possible in terms of rendering our services quickly. Do I understand, now, that the minister is assuring the House that by far the great majority of them will at least have their reporting cards by the end of this week? That is the information I have, Mr. Speaker. The bulk of the situation is well in hand but, having been reminded by the hon. member, I will put a close follow-up on it. Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. I notice that last night I received a letter in my mailbox from him giving notice of a meeting on March 5; he was asking people to check his mandate at that time. I cannot attend then, so I should like to do it now. In view of the recent concern about energy and policies put forth to conserve energy, would the minister reconsider the idea of taxing small aeroplanes, especially in light of the fact that many small aeroplanes get as high a gas mileage as middle-sized automobiles? Certainly his proposal is going to put at least a $30 million crimp on the aeroplane industry in this country. Mr. Speaker, we discussed this matter thoroughly when the excise bill was before the House. Mr. Speaker, anyone who looks at a map of Canada will realize that this is not a country in which use of the aeroplane should be restricted. In light of the fact that small aeroplanes use only .03 per cent of all the fuel used for transportation, would the minister table the data which led him to the conclusion there would be any significant saving in fuel? The calculation shows that in seven years you would only save five days of fuel if you stopped all small aeroplane traffic. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can add to what was said during the three days of debate here. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he could explain the rationale which allowed his department, I believe, to permit the import of ten million pounds of potatoes from Maine for processing, in light of the fact that maritime potato growers are still selling their produce at well below the cost of production. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the hon. member is referring to potatoes which were imported into Canada last year. If he is, these potatoes come in under our laws. At the same time we are exporting potatoes in processed form into the United States from the province of Alberta, so it is a movement of trade which has been customary in North America. It has always been so. If the hon. member is referring to something which happened just recently, I should like to have the information. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this permit was granted very recently. Anyone can import potatoes as long as they meet tariff restrictions and grading standards. We have no permit system for importing potatoes, as there is in the United States when we are shipping our seed potatoes, etc., which is a very big market for us. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Has the hon. gentleman prepared statistics to show the benefit or gain to the treasury for each one-point rise in the cost of living index? Mr. Speaker, we do not keep such statistics. The question should rather be directed to the Minister of Finance, who charts the economic policy of the government. In light of that answer, could the hon. gentleman explain the statement of the secretary of the Treasury Board in an address to Canada Assistance Plan officials in which he said that for each one-point increase in the cost of living the federal treasury profited by some $300 million? Mr. Speaker, incomes obviously increase because of inflation, but I expect to table the estimates for fiscal year 1975-76 before the House on Wednesday. The hon. member will then realize that expenses increase accordingly as well. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I wonder how he will respond to the request by airline flight attendants that the Canadian Labour Code continue to govern their employment arrangements with Canadian airlines, and that they are entitled to the same rights as any other females in the labour force. We are endeavouring to arrive at a solution which will be to the satisfaction of the attendants. Our position is that the code should govern, but there are other factors which the Department of Transport are putting forward with respect to the safety aspects. Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister's view will prevail, because on the basis of the information I have, the view of the transport officials on the pregnancy of flight attendants has about as much reality in 1975 as the horse and buggy. Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to welcome him back from Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I want to say in respect of the trip to Mexico to which the hon. gentleman referred, that I left on Monday, travelling one day there, and came back yesterday; so I was there two days on government business. I can say that some of my discussions will prove to be successful in helping Canadian cattle producers, especially those in western Canada. Regarding the importation of cattle under 700 pounds, they do not come within the average quota from the United States and that is not the normal trading pattern. I intimated that I felt very strongly that this was not the normal trading pattern. We are making representations and reveiwing the whole program at the present time. I hope to be making some suggestions and taking some action very shortly in this respect, as we do not like what is happening. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Will he inform the House whether he and his colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, have resumed negotiations with the U.S. government in respect of recent livestock problems that border on a near trade war, and will these negotiations include a personal exchange between the minister and Secretary Butz? Mr. Speaker, I can say that while I was in Mexico I did talk to one of the undersecretaries, Mr. Long, who deals directly with these problems. I am not saying I made any gains at all, but our officials were discussing this matter with U.S. officials as late as two weeks ago. I do not know whether any discussions took place in the past week, but there is certainly no trade war at all. There are more restrictions placed on our trade with the United States that we would like to discuss, but there is no trade war at the present time, as far as I am concerned. Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Agriculture aware of the fact that the Food Prices Review Board is currently undertaking a study in respect of a food policy for Canada? Bearing in mind that today is Valentine's Day, will the minister assure the House that he and his department are prepared to co-operate with Mrs. Plumptre to the fullest extent on this very important subject? Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Ontario government has closed down the Burwash minimum security prison in the Sudbury basin and relocated 200 jobs from that district, and in view of the fact that the federal government is seeking a site for a medium security prison somewhere in southern Ontario at a cost of $7 million, will the Solicitor General inform the House whether his department has investigated the possibility of transforming Burwash to a medium security prison and, if not, does he intend to do so? Mr. Speaker, we have already examined this possibility with the government of Ontario. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the Burwash institution would be satisfactory for federal needs. First of all, our policy now is to move into smaller institutions which accommodate 150 to 180 inmates. Second, we try to locate the institutions as near as possible to the major population areas from which the inmates come. Our need is in southern Ontario and not in northern Ontario, because most of the inmates come from southern Ontario. For these reasons we do not feel that Burwash is suitable at the present time. Mr. Speaker, I fully realize that we from northern Ontario are very law-abiding citizens. However, in view of the fact that the minister's department has been looking around in the Barrie area, which is only an hour or an hour and a half from Burwash by car -- I do not think that is very far -- will the minister reconsider the Burwash institution for upgrading to a medium security institution? Would he please look at this situation again, in view of the fact it is not very far from the centres from which people come who commit crimes? As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is not suitable because of its size. Burwash is a rather large institution which would require a lot of work, at great expense, to put into the type of shape we would require. Consequently, I think it would be better for us to build the type of institutions we need near the areas where they are required. Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that matter. I can tell the House that there is very close co-operation among the RCMP, the Montreal Urban Community Police and the Quebec Provincial Police in respect of matters relating to crime. I will check into the representations made by the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, the minister more or less anticipated my supplementary question. I intended to ask him whether he has had any recent communication with the Attorney General of Quebec or the Montreal police chief, in respect of what is becoming a national disgrace, to ascertain if there are any direct national or international implications to this disgraceful and sordid story and to ensure that there is the fullest co-operation between the three police forces. Mr. Speaker, I have had recent discussions with the Minister of Justice for Quebec, but not on that particular subject. I can tell the House that there are frequent consultations among the RCMP, the Montreal Urban Community Police force and Sureté Quebec. I will check to see if more can be done and, in particular, I will look into the question raised by the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which arises from a recent report in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, in which the Minister of Agriculture is reported to have stressed the need for the minister's department making available to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency part of a $10 million per year fund to help promote export sales of Canadian agricultural products. The Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying: They'd better be giving them some or I'll break their goddamn necks. I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he found his colleague's logic persuasive and, if so, whether CEMA has access to some of that money. Mr. Speaker, we are very anxious to assist in the export of Canadian eggs, and there have been representations made to a number of countries, particularly in the Middle East and elsewhere, with a view to helping the Egg Marketing Agency remove or reduce its surplus. Part of that $10 million? Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not know which minister the hon. member was referring to when he referred to the Minister of Agriculture; but if he was referring to this one, I deny emphatically making that statement, and I don't care what paper it was in. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour in reference to the commission of inquiry set up two months ago to look into safety in the mines operated by the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Having regard to the time-frame, is the minister in a position to tell us when we may expect an interim or final report? Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an answer right now, but I will check into it. I believe it will be some time yet. Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Solicitor General but I see he has escaped. Instead, I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Fisheries. Has the minister received a request from the British Columbia government for further assistance in respect of the salmon enhancement program and, if so, has he replied to that request? Mr. Speaker, during the very useful discussions held with the minister responsible for fisheries in the province of British Columbia, in October we did look at all the problems involved in this proposed development. This is a most imaginative and remarkable program suggested by my predecessor. Mr. Speaker, co-operation is ongoing between the officials of my department and the provincial officials. There are also discussions at the ministerial level. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and it follows my motion of yesterday dealing with the fragmentation of union power within the public sectors. In view of the increasing number of walk-outs and strikes within individual and essential public sectors of our economy, with one of which we are presently being faced, can the minister advise the House whether his department or any other department has given consideration to the possibility of single sector bargaining and, if not, would he now be prepared to consider this method of negotiation as an answer to some of the problems plaguing the essential services of this country? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that a joint committee of the House and of the Senate is studying the Finkelman report on this subject. If he has particular views on the issue he could make representations to the committee. Of course, a bill on this subject will be brought before the House after the committee has reported to the Cabinet. Could the minister then explain whatever happened to the leaked memorandum of the recommendation submitted to the cabinet by the Minister of Labour regarding labour relations in Canada, which dealt in part with the problem of fragmentation within the single public sector of our economy along the lines which I suggested in my motion yesterday and as I have suggested in the past? Mr. Speaker, I am not very concerned about what can be written outside the House or about some comments that can be made at this time. The House has the opportunity to review the situation. If the hon. member has definite views on the subject, he should inform the committee. My question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I am sorry the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has left, because this question would have interested him. Since unemployed persons may receive unemployment insurance benefits even when not registered with a Manpower placement centre, what measure is the minister taking to ensure that these persons are available for employment and accept appropriate employment when it is offered? Although the question does not make it clear, the hon. member must be referring to union hiring halls in the construction industry. I would assure the hon. member that we have negotiated an understanding with 175 of these hiring halls that the Unemployment Insurance Commission will have access to the records related to the verification of the availability for work of their members within the hiring hall system. I would also add that union hiring halls are the offshoot of negotiations between management, the businesses involved and the unions, and have not been instigated by the federal government. Much of this of course is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. To return to my first comment, we have been negotiating satisfactory arrangements for the monitoring of these activities with the union hiring halls, and this has been going on for the last several months. I would ask the minister if he can clarify when these arrangements were made for co-ordination between Manpower centres and union hiring halls, because we hear that the construction industry in British Columbia has great difficulty in finding manpower for their operations. Mr. Speaker, this is the reintroduction of a similar bill presented to the twenty-ninth parliament by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson). I continue to be concerned at the injustice imposed on thousands of deserted or divorced mothers who have obtained maintenance orders in one province that cannot be enforced because the deserting or departed spouse takes up residence in another provincial jurisdiction. This bill, which purports to establish, with the approval of all provinces, an agency to enforce in one province alimony and maintenance orders issued in another, is admittedly only a first step. It is hoped that from this bill will flow a government measure providing for the automatic and guaranteed payment of alimony and maintenance orders awarded by the court and for the federal and provincial governments to be responsible for collecting these payments. 1975 is International Women's Year. This bill is a compassionate measure to correct an area of injustice to thousands of mothers. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day. At 1.08 p.m. the House took recess. The House resumed at 2 p.m. When the committee rose last evening clause 7 as amended was under consideration. It had been suggested that it be stood, but at the request of the hon. member for York-Simcoe it remained under discussion. The hon. member for York-Simcoe. On clause 7. Mr. Chairman, when I asked that clause 7 be not stood I intended it to be open for further discussion and debate with specific reference to the real estate implications of this section. While I am on my feet perhaps I should make some passing comment in regard to the unfortunate reference made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs during question period today when he implied that I had been instrumental in holding up this bill. I realize that perhaps the minister is not in touch with reality and with what has actually been transpiring on the bill, but I would point out for the record that this bill arises out of the November 18 budget brought down by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance chose not to introduce the bill to this House until December 20, and I would suggest that the government had it completely within its power to have brought this legislation on much sooner last year, but it chose not to do so. When we returned in January this year the government could have given this legislation top priority to ensure that there would be the maximum debate time afforded to it. But it chose not to give it particular priority. In fact when it did bring it on for debate, I think the government took three separate days out of the debate to consider other matters rather than getting on with discussion of this bill. As you undoubtedly know, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the time delays since November 18, the Minister of Finance has just very recently tabled about 40 amendments to the bill. With all due respect, if the government keeps introducing legislation that is so inadequate and has so many obvious mistakes in it that it has to be amended by the government before it can be passed, surely we cannot be faulted for giving some type of prudent review to the legislation before us. Hear, hear! Politically that may be right, but I think as members of parliament we should do what is right for the people of Canada. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 7 which, as I understand it, implement paragraph (12) of the Income Tax motion. It seems to me this provision would mean that carrying costs on land awaiting development will not be chargeable against other income but can be taken into account only when the land is sold. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe pointed out last night, and as I mentioned in the House on second reading of this bill, this particular measure may well force many small developers out of business. It is these small developers who make up about 90 per cent of the entire industry. They are the ones who actually build most of the homes constructed in this country. So the government, which seems to be trying to increase the amount of land on the market at the moment to stimulate house construction, may end up by achieving the exact opposite result of depressing construction by making it hard for those in the industry to survive. The goal is admirable, but the means are very questionable. We have asked the Minister of Finance if he will not make a distinction here between land speculators who buy and sell land but who do not develop it, and land developers who do much of the construction themselves. Or does the government object to making the distinction between speculators and developers in the first place? I would like to direct that question to the Minister of Finance and also to his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who may have a somewhat different point of view in this regard. As the minister must surely know, this measure will penalize many small developers who must bear the carrying costs of the land, not because they are unwilling to put it on the market but because of the long delays in securing planning permission and equally in the servicing for land on which they intend to build. The average delay between applying for planning permission from a municipality to build and getting both that permission and the servicing necessary before construction can begin, is from two to five years. I want to ask the minister if there is any provision in this bill, or if he will insert one, to enable developers who have already applied for planning permission and for servicing to deduct the carrying costs of the land in question as they have been able to do up until now? I would also like to get some clarification from the minister on whether the measures proposed in this bill will have the effect of enabling developers to charge the carrying costs of land against their income when the land is sold? In other words, when this clause is passed they will not be able to write off the carrying costs of undeveloped land they own, but when they sell it will they be able to write off those charges, and if so, will they be able to write them all off at once? If this is not possible it seems likely that most of these firms will simply pass on to the home buyer the several hundred million dollars of cost that this measure means they will incur, so that what the minister thinks he is gaining now with more land on the market, he will be losing five years from now in higher land and home prices. My interpretation of the remarks of the Minister of Finance last night is that the full carrying costs of land will be chargeable against tax when the land is sold. But, if this is so, where is the effectiveness in his policy? Large developers will still gain the tax advantages of carrying land -- they will simply gain them a little later. The people squeezed will be the small developers who cannot afford to wait for the tax write-off because of existing liquidity problems, and many may be forced out of business. Yet these small developers are the builders and construction firms contributing most to housing in this country. They make up 90 per cent of the industry. But they are not the ones who hold the bulk of land designated for future development. As CMHC figures show, the vast proportion of land around Canadian urban centres is owned by five or six mammoth development corporations. They have the financial resources to resist pressure to put land on the market, because they can afford to wait until the land is sold to take advantage of the tax write-off. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York-Simcoe has just nodded -- giving me permission to say something. The simple answer to the question of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is, first of all, whether or not a plan is filed, the expenses incurred after May 6, 1974, are the ones disallowed until the land is brought into development. She is perfectly right in her assumption that once the land is brought into development the carrying charges become expenses calculated against income for taxation purposes. I have a couple of brief remarks on clause 7 that I should like to place on the record, Mr. Chairman. With this proposal to discontinue the practice of permitting land developers to deduct the cost of carrying land from income earned in the taxation year, I assume the minister's position is one of not allowing the deduction of the carrying charges it would cost the land developer to bring the land on to the market. The fact is, however, that it is not the cost of the raw land that is the problem in bringing more land on to the market. This is not the holdup stopping lots for housing coming on the market, and I am sure the minister knows this. The holdup is the red tape at the municipal and provincial level, and the lack of funds for servicing land. It is not true to say in general that land developers are holding back land that would otherwise be developed quickly, in the hope of a rise in prices. In my view this clause will do nothing to bring land onto the market more quickly; indeed, it may be counterproductive. If developers have to increase their lines of credit with the various banks and places where they get money, that is going to be reflected in the price of land. This provision is, in a sense, inflationary. Maybe the minister will not agree, but if a careful study is made I think we will find it will increase the final price of serviced land and add an extra burden to housing prices and the market in general. Could the minister tell the House if his department has done an in-depth study on this subject and the income tax laws that, in my view, preclude the deduction of the carrying costs of land pending development, will only increase the overhead expenses of the developer, and which will do little to bring more land onto the market quickly? Has the minister done a real good study of this area, or is it a popular political move? Mr. Chairman, that is almost throwing my motives into question, but I know the hon. member well enough to know that was not his intent. The government has done an in-depth study, particularly the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and CMHC. Last night the hon. member for York-Simcoe got up and pleaded on behalf of developers, and the Minister of Finance quite rightly pointed out that the amendment really does not affect the individual -- because the individual in the first place who owns property cannot charge any carrying charges against income -- but directs itself to the developer. Then the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands made a careful plea this afternoon on behalf of developers, at the same time saying that the land encircling the large urban areas is owned by five or six big developers. This is the substance of the Dennis report, which quite clearly said that in all the major cities across the country land is controlled on a land banking basis by five or six developers. The CMHC report, which indicates the CMHC estimates of ten year requirements, and the acreage controlled by six leading developers, shows that in Calgary 7,500 acres are required for the next ten years, and it is all controlled by those six developers. In Montreal, 12,000 acres are required, and of this the six big developers control 3,000 acres. In Toronto the requirement is 19,600 acres, and six developers control 18,000 acres of that. That is the very reason why one of the main components in the high costs of housing is the cost of land. Let me direct the attention of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to the names of the developers in these areas named who control such vast amounts of urban land. In Toronto three films own in excess of 15,000 acres. Canadian Equity, which owns Don Mills development and the Erin Mills New Town, is controlled by the Cadillac Development Corporation and by the Bronfman (Seagram's) interests. A large shareholder in Bramalea is Eagle Star Insurance, which also holds an interest in another large corporation, Trizee Corporation. When will you deal with developers in B.C.? All are wholly owned subsidiaries of British building companies. Another is Markborough Properties Limited, among whose major stockholders are George Wimpey and the Royal Bank. Kaufman and Broad, Inc., a major American developer, recently acquired the prime land holdings of Revenue Properties Limited by having acquired all the shares of its subsidiary, the Victoria Wood Development Corporation. These are Toronto developers about which the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the hon. member for York Centre, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth are so concerned. No. The hon. member is all mixed up. Let me draw the attention of the committee to Cadillac Development Corporation Ltd. This corporation is one of the major holders of land in and around the Toronto area. Let me put on record the earnings of the company and the taxes it has paid because some hon. members suggest that we are striking at the small developer. There are few small developers engaged in housing development. Cadillac owns over 5,000 acres in metropolitan Toronto. It has a 40 per cent interest in Canadian Equity and is responsible for managing the Erin Mills New Town development. In addition it controls, entirely or in part, some 13,200 residential dwelling units. Cadillac had net earnings from 1966 to 1971 of approximately $62,968,000. Since Cadillace has been more adept at utilizing the loopholes provided in Canada's tax laws than most other companies, it paid during this period a total of $20,506 in taxes, an infinitesimal amount. Let me put some more figures on record concerning another developer, Markborough Properties, Ltd., about which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for York-Simcoe are so concerned. Markborough Properties is developing 3,000 acres north of Toronto in the Mississauga-Streetsville area, to be known as Meadowvale. In addition the company is planning a residential development in Agincourt North, to be called either Brimley Wood or Brimley Forest. Markborough did not pay one cent in income tax to the federal and provincial governments between 1966 and 1970. During this time the company's net earnings were $12.1 million. Is this a small developer who needs our protection? Large developers can get away with not paying taxes because of large loopholes in existing tax laws. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who has become the spokesman on this topic for the Conservative party, may not be aware of all the tricks of large developers. For example, a developer will set up another company, to which he will charge interest, carrying charges, municipal taxes, and so on; and these amounts are set against profits or income from properties. The result is that the developer incurs little or no liability for taxes. Another result has been that developers have been able to charge higher prices for land. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs is aware of the problem, and has attempted to make the large developers put some of their land holdings in urban areas on the market. Of course you are laughing when you say that. I approve of this amendment to the Income Tax Act. Land banking is important if we are to bring down the price of land. At present five or six major developers bank land around our major cities. The federal government itself has engaged in land banking, in an effort to bring down the cost of land. It has not succeeded too well; prime land in the major urban areas of the country still remains in the hands of five or six large developers. The provisions of this bill will make sure that these private developers will not keep on doing what they have done for the past ten years. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs will not achieve his target of 210,000 homes unless we close tax loopholes and force these large companies to sell their properties. If they cannot charge interest and municipal taxes against income, they will not find it profitable to hold on to their properties. No longer will they escape taxes; they will pay tax on profits and income. The Income Tax Act must be so amended if the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is to achieve his goal of 210,000 starts for 1975. Last night the Minister of Finance said that no private individual, no private home owner, can charge interest paid or municipal taxes against income. Why should these large developers be given an advantage that is not available to the home owner? Eliminating these advantages would result in lower land costs, and this I support. Probably the most significant factor in today's housing costs is the high cost of land; that is why I was mortified to hear the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the hon. member for York Centre, and the hon. member for York-Simcoe, talk in support of developers, to the disadvantage of the average Canadian home owner. It is useless talking about a $500 grant for first time home buyers unless we can bring land costs down, and we can only do this by closing tax loopholes. This the Minister of Finance is about to do. I commend the Minister of Finance for what he has done in this area in Bill C-49. I do not like what he has done with regard to oil corporations but I commend him for what he has done in closing tax loopholes available to land developers. His reasons for so doing are obvious. His officials, and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, must have told him what is happening around our large cities and how five or six developers control all land. He knows that the federal government must engage in land banking on a massive scale, for only in that way can we bring land prices down across the country. This being so, I was most surprised to hear the comments of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. She is certainly progressive on social issues. However, when it comes to economic issues it would be a retrogressive step on her part to condone the outright pillaging of moneys from ordinary people with regard to the cost of homes. I would think she would assume the basic principle that has been stated so many times by members of her party, and indeed all parties, that housing is a basic human right to be enjoyed by all Canadians. It is their right to have a home at a reasonable cost. If we are to have this as a basic right we have to bring down one of the main components in the high cost of housing. That is the high cost of land. For the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to make a tearful plea to me on this point is really shocking at this time of the day. Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of intervening at this particular stage. I already made my position clear with regard to the subject matter presently being considered. I share some of the concerns of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in terms of the effect of this on small developers. One of the consequential effects is that this provision will have a tendency to drive out those small developers who do not have the liquidity to be able to go through the long haul and stay in the business of building houses. It seems to be precisely in the interest of the large developer that this kind of provision ought to go forward because, if the small developer is not allowed to stay in business, this will reduce competition. We will be concentrating more and more on putting the development of housing in this country into the hands of those very people about whom the hon. member for Broadview quite rightly complains. I share the hon. member's view with regard to the large developers. I also share his view that this particular provision ought to be there in that respect. However, I am disappointed that the Department of Finance has not been able to find a way to make a distinction between the large developer and the small developer who is legitimately trying to develop his land and, not by any lack of goodwill or seriousness about building on his part, is forced, by municipal bylaw into methods of getting approval which result in delays for months and often years before he can proceed with his legitimate development. It is these people I am very much concerned about, Mr. Chairman. I have had representations from small builders in my constituency and elsewhere who are deeply concerned that they will be adversely affected. If they are adversely affected it will not be in the public interest because competition is a fundamental way of guaranteeing a fair deal for the consumers. I certainly hope some way will be found to make that kind of distinction between the large corporation and the legitimate small developer who wants to provide homes and perform a useful function in society. In fact he is responsible for a lot of the pressure and competition to keep house prices at reasonable levels. There is no question that the high cost of land is one of the most fundamental elements in the excessive cost of housing. We have to attack that in many ways. However, that problem largely has to be resolved at the municipal and provincial levels. It is they who place roadblocks in the way of those legitimately trying to develop land. They force the developer to hold land for extended periods of time, at very high costs. That, of course, is ultimately passed on to the consumer. In my earlier remarks on this subject I mentioned the difficulties involved with impost fees placed on land costs in municipalities. They clearly have an adverse effect on keeping down housing costs. Getting back to the original point, I am disappointed that to date a way has not been found to make that distinction between the large developer and small legitimate developer who will be adversely affected. It will have a consequential effect on competition in the housing field which does not appear to be in the interests of the consumers of this country. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the hon. member for Broadview could hardly finish his speech without breaking into laughter about some of the facts he was putting on the record, but I take it he must have felt he had some purpose in putting down a lot of misimpressions. This is not a question of doing something that will seriously affect the large developers in this country. The hon. member for Broadview knows that. If he is concerned about the tax position of some of those companies, he should realize that if this amendment goes through today and becomes law, it is not the big companies that will worry about it. They have sufficient other resources and sufficient write-offs to offset, for many years, whatever will be the tax implications of this clause. As the hon. member for Ontario stated, it will be the smaller developer who will feel the crunch. It might be helpful if we came down on these lofty, vain figures that have been bandied about, and dealt with a few specifics. If I understood the hon. member for Broadview correctly, he stated that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation said there is a need for 19,000 acres of developable land in the Toronto area. And Lo and behold, he added up the acreage that belonged to various companies and it came to 18,000 acres. He created the impression that they are the demons. That is totally ridiculous. The actual fact is that in the Toronto area there are probably one million acreas that could potentially be developed. CMHC stated that in their opinion there is an immediate need for 19,000 acres to be brought onto the market. No, no, in a ten year period. All right, in a ten year period. My point is that it is a governmental responsibility at all three levels that those 19,000 acres are not being brought on more quickly than in past years. It is the bureaucracy that the NDP caucus and the Trudeau Liberal caucus love so much that is the main impediment to the development of serviced land in this country. When developers are held up from bringing land into a serviced condition so they can build houses, and cannot charge the expenses of carrying that land against their income, that is only complicating the problem. Let us be specific. The land component of a serviced lot is roughly 50 per cent. In the Toronto situation lots are commonly selling for $20,000. The minister is saying that neither of these items will be chargeable against his income. This means that a man who is in the 25 per cent tax bracket has to pay between $300 and $400 a year. Between $1,500 and $2,000 has been added to the cost of land before a house can be built on it. An hon. member said he might have to sell it to build a house on it. But to whom would he sell it? If this type of philosophy were applied by the Department of Finance to business generally it would bring most businesses to a halt. Give the Minister of Finance encouragement and he may pull this kind of a trick on all business. An excellent suggestion. The net result will be higher prices for homes. Various developers have been mentioned. As I have already said, the ten largest developers in the country, those the hon. member for Broadview likes to refer to, are building collectively less than 10 per cent of the homes in the entire country. Nonsense. The hon. member says nonsense. He mentioned Cadillac. I should like him to tell us how many homes Cadillac built in the last fiscal year. The total number of homes built by Cadillac was 2,000 -- 2,000 homes in 1973 out of a total of 268,000 built in the nation. I think he would be a little more responsible if he would start talking a few facts instead of conjuring up a lot of ridiculous rubbish for the record in Hansard. The hon. member for Ontario who says he wishes there were some way to help a small businessman in this development phase. I say there are obvious ways in which he could be helped. What would be wrong with an amendment to make it clear that, whatever his net earnings with regard to these homes, he could charge the carrying cost of the inventory on land against his revenue form the homes he is selling? This would certainly get around the Spadina member's comment last night when he was worrying about his friends with parking lots in downtown Toronto. The fact is that ultimately a builder needs an inventory, and that inventory has to be backlogged for five years. Surely the carrying costs are properly chargeable expenses against the income the developer is making. Again, if we are anxious that undue profit should not accrue to big developers or companies, let us put a ceiling on it and say that carrying costs are chargeable up to a certain limit only, beyond which they are not deductible. There are all kinds of ways in which the legislation could be improved if the cold-hearted minister had the will to help the consumer and home buyer in this country. Now you have spoiled it all! I believe the committee is disposed to stand clause 7. I should like to propose that the clause be stood and that, before we return to it, the minister should review the position to see whether amendment is possible to ensure that small builders will not be inadvertently hurt by this provision. If it is designed to catch the speculator, if it is designed to put more land on to the market, let us not act exactly in reverse and simply complicate a problem which the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs is at a loss to deal with already. Let us stand the clause on the understanding that the minister will return to it with an amendment, which hopefully will meet our requests. Mr. Chairman, I do not think this clause should be stood. I am quite prepared to support it because I think it will do some good. I do not see it as constituting a cataclysmic reform. Indeed to some extent I am in sympathy with the position taken by the hon. member for York Simcoe. While he is being reactionary he is at least being logical. He points out that the entire income tax system is loaded with all sorts of devices whereby losses in one sector can be charged against profits in another. Shopping centres, for example, have grown and expanded by exploiting taxation policy. They take their losers, the ones they hold on to, the inventory in other words, and write them off against their profitable operations. In this way they get a nice government subsidy for uneconomic expansion. This is what is being done throughout the economy. Is the existence of such a system an argument for saying, as the hon. member suggests, that the particular proposal in the clause before us should be extended to apply to industry as a whole? Maybe it should. Maybe we should not allow these write-offs. I see the hon. member shaking his head. He is not prepared to be a red tory. I do not know whether this provision will lower the price of land to the buyer of a home. I doubt very much that it will. I do not think anything we have done to date by way of taxation law has resulted in lowering the price of land to the final purchaser. But this legislation is at least meritorious in that, while we do not know whether the price to the consumer will be lower, it will not increase, and the government will get some revenue it can use to build public housing and correct some of the deficiencies in the housing market that exist today. That in itself is worth doing. I listened with a great deal of care to the hon. members who talked about the small developer versus the large developer, and suggested we should act rather more kindly toward the small speculator as opposed to the big speculator. What is the difference? Surely a speculator is a speculator; the size does not much matter. The small speculator has just not had the opportunity to shove it into us as much as the big speculator, but he is on his way up, and this legislation is helping to give him a boost so that eventually he will be in the grand category of the big knife. He now is only the little guy and is only ripping us off by a little bit, and according to some he is entitled to some consideration. I would hate to have a lawyer come into court and defend me on that basis. Gilbert would. No, the hon. member for Broadview is an excellent lawyer and his clients are all innocent. I really do not see how you can make any distinction in law or in legislation between the small speculator and the big speculator. If you take a look at the land question you will find that everyone who owns property, no matter how much or how little, is in fact a speculator and gains by any increase in the value of land. There is no one happier in a city like Toronto than those people who own little houses and find the price of land is rising and they benefit enormously overnight. They are not active speculators, but in fact they get the same benefits any other speculator gets. If you want to go back far enough to find out who the real speculator is, and I am not suggesting that he is unjustified, you will find it is the farmer. He is the man who puts the big price on his land. Mind you, the land passes through a number of hands and the price is exaggerated as it moves on from speculator to speculator. This proposal has another merit in that it will kill some of that speculation, but if it is going to hurt anyone it will hurt the primary speculator. It is not going to be as attractive for one speculator to buy from another speculator and sell to a third speculator, because at every stage there are costs of interest, taxes and such things. The primary speculator is the farmer who continues to farm the land, or the hobby farmer who buys it from the real farmer and holds the land until the price is right. These people are able to write off all the costs of holding that land. I do not know of any government that is willing to move as far as to cut off this feature, but those are the facts. Is that in your leadership program, Max? I am daring up to a point, but I am not prepared to ignore every bit of wisdom in this society. I might say that I can get into enough trouble on this question without any advice from the other side. You are doing pretty well. I am doing well. It seems to me that when we are debating something as important as this we should have some straightforward arguments without a lot of bleeding all over the place for the small speculator, as if there were something particularly noble about what he is doing as opposed to what the large corporations are doing. They are both engaged in the same nasty business of getting everything they can for themselves by holding land for as long as possible, and writing off all the costs against the land in order to make a big gain. I think we have to stop that, to whatever extent possible. There are those who suggest that perhaps the guilty people in this whole business of land speculation and rising house prices are the municipalities. They may be correct. Perhaps it is the municipalities are the guilty ones in that they encourage these groups to develop lands in their areas, even though these groups take the attitude that the land is theirs and no one must trespass. In any event that is what we are dealing with, and in this legislation the very least we can do is make sure that the government gets some revenue with which, hopefully, it will be able to carry out some progressive measures in the form of public subsidized housing for those at the lower income level. Mr. Chairman, I understood that the minister was prepared to stand this clause. We have the resources portion in there too and we cannot split them. I stood up to say one or two things about this particular portion of the bill. Just a few minutes ago the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge said he did not believe this particular change would do anything toward lowering the price of homes. Just like the cost of the linen that hangs in this chamber these costs are going to come out of the pockets of the taxpayer who eventually buys the house. The difficulty, of course, is that the more you load on to the cost of a single family home, the more you load on to the cost of a condominium or an apartment, the higher is the price to the eventual purchaser. All these carrying charges and other costs related to the property, whether a single family home or a condominium, will be paid by the purchaser. All these costs, including maintenance and whatever else required, will be added into the cost to some poor man or woman who wants to buy a home. The whole object of this, from our point of view, is to get the minister to reconsider this. We are not a bunch of national bleeders like the NDP. We are putting a reasonable proposition to the minister which we think will decrease the rate of escalation in the price of real estate, with the hope that somehow it will level out, Mr. Chairman. We are not suggesting this will lower the price or will end the general increase. The federal government's program to finance sewage treatment plants and their extension, and storm drainage systems, is aimed at lowering the cost of homes and housing. The proposal we put forward represents one thing we can do here to slow down the rate of increase. Some hon. members have suggested that this measures will result in the movement of land. Some people believe this will force the movement of land from one person to another, and thus to the ultimate owner. Of course it does not encourage that. What it really does is encourage the movement of land from one speculator to another speculator as the cost of carrying that land increases, and as the impediments get greater. We all admit there are impediments to development. What we should be concerned with is the fact that this land is merely moved from one speculator to another, and there are no two ways about that. There are some bête noires in our land development areas where the movement of land is slow. These people have been unresponsive to the housing need in their areas. They have had legitimate pressures on them with regard to the slowness and unresponsiveness of the neighbourhood groups that the hon. member was referring to and the person who, after all, in a democracy has the right to express himself. But I do not believe that we should contribute to the tax laws, to the back-up behing the dam, with respect to the availability of land, but more particularly with respect to its cost. That is exactly what this provision will do if it is allowed to stand. If it is the wish of anyone to accuse the municipalities of being slow, whether or not the accusation is justified -- and I think that in some cases it is -- if it is their wish to accuse some provinces in this country of being slow with respect to the land development policies -- and some parties tend to do that, not for any noble purpose but for a political purpose which I could only call crass and unworthy of them -- then rather than having the Minister of Finance cause further difficulties in this whole dreadful field of housing with this legislation, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs should look into the matter. Those in this House who are accusers of other jurisdictions should go to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and say to him: "Your job, Sir, is basically to provide financing for municipalities and provinces. If there is some way that you can open that gate, then there may be some justification for using the tax laws of this country to do this. The tax laws of this country should do nothing to exacerbate the problem which faces our country in terms of housing. I think it would be well for all of us to take a serious look at this matter and not have a knee-jerk reaction to big developers and small developers as if there were something wrong with making profit. This country was not built by governments. If there is some reason for attacking profits, let the government stand up and look the profiteer in the eye. But let us not use the tax legislation to do indirectly what the government does not seem to have the courage to do directly, if in fact there is profiteering. It is no good trotting out the catechism every now and again and saying that all corporations and all businesses are bad, because that is not so. It is a dishonest argument. Some of them are bad, and I would be prepared to admit it, but those should be dealt with directly. In a field where there is a real social need, surely the federal government should not put a stumbling block with its left hand in the way of what it is trying to do with its right hand. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs is making a lot of noise as he goes from place to place talking about increasing the supply of homes; at least, he is pointing in the right direction. The problem is that the Minister of Finance is impeding the efforts of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with regard to housing. So I ask the minister to consider whether this is not a rare opportunity for the two ministers to get together and start to kick with the same foot, or be in track, as some people say. If we do stand this clause, I hope the minister will consider this suggestion from the point of view of price and input into the cost structure of owning, acquiring and renting accommodation for Canadians in this country. Mr. Chairman, before we stand this clause I would like to reply to the statement of the hon. member for York-Simcoe with regard to the building record of Cadillac last year. It is probably true that they built the number of units mentioned by the hon. member, but that does not mean they kept this up. They probably took a rest. They are very clever with regard to controlling their inventory, and if it is not to their advantage to build, they do not build. In fact, they held off last year. He thinks that there are big developers and small developers. Let me tell the hon. member that there are no big developers and small developers. The day of the small builder holding land is gone, and, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said, the CMHC survey indicates that in the main cities five or six land developers control the land. What happens is that the small builders, and there are very few of them left, have to go to the big land developer to get the property and they pay the highest possible price. That is why I was really surprised that the hon. member for Ontario was taken in by the simplistic argument of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. The day of the big land developers is with us. They have control of the land surrounding the cities. They are the ones who have the great advantage of tax loopholes and who have been able to write off the land cost against their incomes. We have had a record of at least ten years of that. When the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton says that the NDP is a party of national bleeders, then I say that any person who protects the developers is a financial squeezer. He is just protecting the financial squeezers, and I am really surprised that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would be taken in by that. I am doubly surprised by the hon. member for Ontario, because his is the government that is trying to bring in certain measures to release land on to the market and to reduce the sales tax on building materials. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what we had to do? We had to set up a monitoring committee. In fact, I do not even know if it has been set up as yet. It was to be made up of representatives of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make sure that these builders have passed on to purchasers the reduction in the sales tax. That indicates the confidence that the government has with regard to builders. The builders never passed it on with regard to land and they will not pass it on with regard to building materials. When I hear the hon. member for York-Simcoe pleading for the developers and trying to make a distinction between the large developers and the small developers, it makes me laugh. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, I would like to make some progress here. If it is the will of the committee of the whole, perhaps we could stand this entire clause. Before doing so, it may be helpful if the minister could clarify two points. Mr. Chairman, the estimate on the revenue was set forth in the budget speech and in the documents at $25 million. Mr. Chairman, can the minister answer my second question? Does he agree that in the case of apartments this is a charge which will not be recoverable by the developer until he actually sells th apartment building? In the meantime, presumably, it is going to have to be covered out of additional rent. The hon. member is right when he says that the charge is only recoverable as an additional charge; but that is only one of the costs calculated in rent, and setting rent is a complicated business, as the hon. gentleman and his friends know. Shall clause 7 carry? Stand. Stand clause 7, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps we could move to clause 8. Does the committee agree that clause 7 shall stand? Agreed. Clause 7 stands. On clause 8. I therefore move: That clause 8 of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out line 4 on page 24 and substituting the following: "not carry on the business in Canada." Are you sure it was typographical? They always blame the printer. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the minister could give a brief explanation as to why he felt it necessary in subclause (1) to change "receivable" to "due" in that, as I would understand those two words, receivable is certainly a more limiting concept than referring to something as being due. Order, please. I think that we should deal with the amendment first. Shall the amendment carry? Agreed. Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, agreed to. On clause 9. This whole clause is a consequential amendment anyway, but I have a technical and relieving amendment to the clause adding the words: "or the acquisition of property" in lines 27 to 29 on page 24. Without these words the interest expense on money borrowed to acquire resource property could not be added to the exploration and development expense account. Consequently a deduction is now available for this interest expense. I move: That clause 9 of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out lines 27 to 29 on page 24 and substituting the following: "purpose of exploration or development or the acquisition of property and the expenses incurred by him in respect of exploration or development or the acquisition of property." I am a little concerned, Mr. Chairman. Already the people in the business of oil development have expressed their feeling that there is going to be a difficulty. With the greatest respect, I ask the minister to stand this clause because I think it is one that we want to look at in the total picture of royalties and exploration and development expenses -- the treatment of the oil and gas industry. I would agree with that. Would the hon. gentleman agree to pass the amendment to the clause? Yes. Shall we pass the amendment to the clause and stand the clause? Carried. Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Is it agreed that we stand clause 9, as amended? Agreed. Clause 9 stands. Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to. On clause 12. I have a technical amendment here to correct the French translation to correspond with the English. Agreed. Amendment agreed to. Mr. Chairman, this clause is a very important clause which deals with a very large subject, and I feel it would be helpful if the minister could give us a little detail concerning the implication of the clause and the full impact of the measure he is proposing. I set that out fully in the budget speech, but I will be glad to address myself to it again now. The clause proposes to reduce the maximum amount of a reserve which may be deducted by trust companies and other lenders of money, and to include in the assets eligibility for the reserve bonds and debentures held in the guaranteed fund of trust companies. There is a technical amendment in the clause to replace the words "principal amount by amortized cost." Subsection (3) of the present tax act permits reduction of the reserve to the extent of 1 1/2 per cent specified assets of trust companies and other money lenders. The amendment will leave the maximum rate of the reserve at 1 1/2 per cent for the first $2 billion of specified assets but will restrict the rate to 1 per cent of the remainder of the specified assets. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, a similar amount is being applied to the reserve which may be made by life insurers and by banks and credit unions under the act and the income tax regulations. Consequently all similar financial institutions will be depleted similarly with respect to these reserves. That is the purpose of it. I think I should note that the only financial institutions which at present have specified assets in excess of $2 billion specifically covered by this amendment will be the six largest banks. Am I correct in stating that this is something only in reference to mortgages and related securities and that there is a different standard with regard to lending activities by chartered banks? No, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the reserve of the institutions that can be set aside for tax purposes as against the value, for tax purposes, of their assets. We are lowering the amount of reserves in those institutions to 1 per cent for that amount of reserve over $2 billion. It is not a new provision. There is a present limit on the reserves for tax purposes of 1 1/2 per cent that is built up against all liabilities of the institution. We feel that based on the experience of the last generation of our banks the reserve is high enough to bring some of that back into tax. We are suggesting, though, that the first $2 billion be protected by the 1 1/2 per cent, but when they reach over that we lower the percentage from 1 1/2 per cent to 1 per cent. Can the minister give an estimate of the amount of revenue he anticipates being generated as a result of the change? Mr. Chairman, that is in the supplementary information to the budget filed in the House; it is $45 million. This is a once in a lifetime operation; it is a windfall because of the change in the tax. I am not too sure that the arguments are strong one way or another on it. We know that banking assets have gone up because of inflation, and naturally the reserves have gove up. We know that in certain bank stocks there may have been some losses tucked away against those reserves, but I am not too sure that the picture is entirely the same as it was last year. There is one area that still puzzles me, Mr. Chairman, and that is why the minister and his advisers moved in on the life insurance companies. We know that the major life insurance companies are mutuals and their shareholdings are owned by policy holders. Every amount of tax is going to be a diminution of benefit under an insurance policy in some way or other. It is not there as a profit for somebody who is going to benefit as a result of the operations of the insurance company on behalf of others. The Canadian life insurance companies are all mutuals; certainly the major ones are. Even when they started taxing the earnings that are applied toward policies -- I suppose this was three or four years ago -- the result was an increase in the premiums or a decline in the dividends that accrued toward the policies. I think this thing is self-defeating. Why does the minister feel that he has to move in on Canada's mutual life insurance companies? As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said, with the left hand the government is doing something which absolutely stultifies what it is trying to do with the right hand. The government encourages people to save, and one of the major ways of saving is life insurance; one of the major investors in residential mortgages and other types of financing is Canada's insurance companies. But the minister turns around -- although his predecessor was the first to do it -- and whips off the revenue. What justification is there for this? As far as I am concerned, if I have to pay $10 or $5 more per thousand for insurance as a result of this action, there is no incentive to save, and this is because of taxation. I think this provision is counterproductive and I wonder why it was included. As far as other insurance companies in Canada are concerned, we know that they had a $200 million loss last year. That was the shortfall between damage claims paid out and premium revenues plus the earned income on prepaid premiums. One of these days the minister is going to have to look at the insurance industry to see how healthy it is, because they cannot stand those losses any more. Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise in support of the question raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West, if not the answer he received. I notice the minister was sort of shaking his head. Because you come from Waterloo. The hon. member for Edmonton West made an excellent point. The Minister of Finance seems to be playing a curious shell game -- taking away from one group of savers and bringing another group of savers into the picture. In one clause we will be asked to consider registered retirement savings plan benefits and home ownership plan benefits. The minister's surveys must have indicated that here is another group of suckers ready to be enticed at some point. The idea is that you take away from one group that is already with you and say to another group "Look at the benefits we are giving you". The result does not increase the pool of savings, however, but merely transfers benefits from one kind of investor to another. That is a curious policy and as far as I can see it is ineffectual. Whatever this party's feelings about mutual and life insurance companies may be, in fact they are primary investors in mortgages and, thus, housing. If we are trying to stimulate housing it makes no sense to take benefits away from that group and give them to another. If you total the numbers of people he claims to have removed from the rolls over the last four years, it would mean that nobody in Canada would be paying any tax. I think this is a good question, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to hear the minister give his rationale for encouraging one group to save as against another. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. gentleman that I do not mind him wanting to go into the insurance aspect since he represents Waterloo. I am sure it is incidental that his views on that subject are different from views he expressed earlier on real estate. There are a number of insurance companies in my riding and, although I do not think they contributed to my campaign or support me, I do represent them. Sometimes they criticize me. Let me say, however, that shortly before coming to the House I received a brief from the local real estate investors in my constituency. These constituents have a right to be represented and heard as well. Madam Chairman, I was not trying to suggest otherwise. We are talking about reserves for losses, which have nothing to do with the rate of premiums or the costs of the companies. We are not talking about a great variation in the percentages. The amount concerned is about $2 billion. We are cutting the rate back from 1.5 per cent to 1 per cent. This is not a big deal. It does not interfere with the cost of doing business and does not affect insurance companies in this country which do not have assets of $2 billion. This affects only the six largest banks. Madam Chairman, does this provision deal solely with mortgage reserves? No, with total reserves of the company. Did the minister wish to say something? No, Madam Chairman. I understand that chartered banks have a second formula for calculating their reserves on general loans which are not secured by mortgages or similar types of real estate security. I am asking the minister to compare the formula governing the general lending activity of banks with the new formula which he is proposing for mortgage reserves. Madam Chairman, there is no new formula. As I indicated, we are lowering the rate from 1.5 per cent to 1 per cent, which would involve about $2 billion. Clause, as amended agreed to. On clause 13. Madam Chairman, I wish to move a technical amendment to this clause, which would make the applicable date after May 6, and not May 6, 1974. I move: That clause 13 of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out line 16 on page 28 and substituting the following: (2) This section is applicable after Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. On clause 14. Madam Chairman, what is the rationale behind allowing scientific work done by a corporation to be deducted in the year of its choice? Presumably the deduction will be made in the year when it is most profitable. Section 37 of the Income Tax Act already confers substantial benefits on those doing scientific research in Canada. Do the representatives of the industry suggest to the minister that the present generous provisions are not enough? Is that why he has improved write-off provisions? Also, will the minister tell us what are the safeguards in this bill? How can we make sure that the benefits of scientific research expenditure, which should accrue to the benefit of the people of this country, do not accrue to the people of other countries? Madam Chairman, this provision seeks to lengthen the period in which expenditures for scientific research can be claimed. Say, for instance, the hon. member and I went into business as equal partners and decided to spend $100,000 on scientific research. If, in the next two years, we did not make much profit, we could find that the limited period in which research expenditures could be claimed would deprive us of our ability to deduct an adequate amount. In other words, it has been found that the short period in which expenditures can be claimed has discouraged research expenditures. If the hon. gentleman and I could claim research expenditures over five or ten years, we should probably take more risks and spend more on scientific research. I think he and I agree that such activity is in our national interest. That is the purpose of this provision. What is the guarantee? First, the activity must be certified by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Section 37(3) of the statute now reads: The minister may obtain the advice of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the National Research Council of Canada, the Defence Research Board or any other agency or department of the government of Canada carrying on activities in the field of scientific research as to whether any particular activity constitutes scientific research. The Minister of National Revenue reinforces the importance of the certificate. Madam Chairman, I want to know what guarantees there are that scientific research done in Canada would be of benefit to Canada. How can we be sure that scientific research done in this country is for the benefit of Canadians, and will not be transferred to the head offices of foreign companies? Madam Chairman, section 37(2) of the act deals with that point. It says in part: There may be deducted in computing the income for a taxation year of a taxpayer who carried on business in Canada and made expenditures in the year in respect of scientific research carried on outside Canada, all such expenditures of a current nature made in the year (a) on scientific research related to the business and directly undertaken by or on behalf of the taxpayer;... In other words, a Canadian subsidiary can contract with a parent in the United States to do research directly related to the subsidiary's work in Canada. I continue: (b) by payments to an approved association, university, college, research institute or other similar institution to be used for scientific research related to the class of business of the taxpayer. I appreciate the minister reading these sections, but what guarantee is there that we are encouraging research which will accrue to our national interest? We take care of the national interest in other legislation. For example, the foreign investment review bill has laid down criteria having to do with whether the proposed take-over is in the national interest. Let us be certain research accrues to the benefit of Canada. Consider the matter of patents. Hardly any patents are taken out in this country. New discoveries have been made, and, where a patent has been taken out, it has been taken out by the head office of an international company, which gets the benefit. Nevertheless, it is important to make this point and to point out the inadequacy of this provision, particularly when the minister is increasing the benefit substantially to these companies through clause 14. Under these circumstances, the government has a responsibility to start designing legislation that will assure the House that the money being expended will accrue to this country. I have one other question for the minister. Looking at the clause, it appears the minister is allowing the companies to capitalize their expenditures by permitting them to carry them out over a number of years or choose a particular year in which they can be written off against investment. This is a form of capitalizing expenditures in the same way that machinery is capitalized over an extended period of time. Normally, anything considered an expense has to be written off in the year it occurred. Since this provision has this element of capitalization, and since the minister's objective is to improve the incentives for scientific research in Canada, why not simply go to a capitalization approach rather than this very awkward and involved method? Because you cannot write off a capital asset in one year. You are then stuck by whatever the depreciation clause is. Here the businessman has the option of writing if off in one year or over several years, depending on his profit picture against which he can write off an expense. We are giving him the option. If we were to capitalize it, he would be caught with the depreciating rate on a diminishing balance, depending on the class of expense. We are doing a little better for him this way. Shall clause 14 carry? Carried. Clause agreed to. Clauses 15 to 17 inclusive agreed to. On clause 18. Madam Chairman, I have another correction to the French translation to correspond with the English. I move: That clause 18 of the French version of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out line 42 on page 32. Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to. On clause 21. That clause 21 of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out lines 43 and 44 on page 34 and substituting the following: "(3) Subsection (1) is applicable after May 6, 1974 and" Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22 agreed to. On clause 23. Madam Chairman, I am not sure whether this is the place to raise this question. I do so for the purpose of clarification. I have a number of questions to ask about the difference between the actual amount of dividends and the taxable amount. In clause 23 there is reference to property "other than property acquired" subsequent to so-and-so. Is this the correct place to raise this matter or should it more properly be raised under clause 70? If so, I will defer my remarks until we reach clause 70. Madam Chairman, this clause deals with technical amendments concerning stock dividends. I will undertake to give the hon. member the right to speak on clause 70, if it is relevant there, or try to find a place for him to introduce this. Clause agreed to. On clause 24. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 24. This amendment at line 38 on page 37 merely corrects a reference. I move: That clause 24 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out line 38 on page 37 and substituting the following: "paragraph 59(2) (d) or (e)" and (b) by striking out line 45 of the French version on page 41 and substituting the following: "(ii) des frais d'exploration, ou" Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. On clause 25. Madam Chairman, I have another technical amendment at lines 7 and 8 on page 46, changing the application date from 1974 to read "1972". There is no change in policy here from the proposal in Bill C-49. I move: That clause 25 of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out lines 7 and 8 on page 46 and substituting the following: "(5) Subsection (1) is applicable to the 1974 and subsequent taxation years, subsection (2) is applicable the 1972 and subsequent taxation years." Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Madam Chairman, I would like the minister to give us an explanation of the registered home savings plan which is part of this clause. The way I read it, at the moment persons can claim up to $1,000 a year to a total of $10,000. That is not where it is. Is that not the one? No. I will accept the explanation of the minister with the right to speak on it at the proper time. Keep your eyes open. You are not in the right spot now. Clause, as amended, agreed to. On clause 26. This clause deals with a new principle. It is a question of property, personal property and eligible capital property. Then there is the question dealing with the principal residence. I think I can explain that. I want to make sure that in this particular instance we are not introducing through a wedge in the door taxation of the principal residence. I know it deals with exchange. Madam Chairman, this is a relieving amendment to extend the period of time during which an individual may be absent from his residence and still retain full exemption on its disposal. There are Canadians who work abroad in foreign based companies, foreign based service offices and armed personnel. As a matter of fact, the need for this amendment was drawn to my attention during the 1972 general election. You learned quite a bit during that election. I learned a lot during the campaign. I learn something every time I go out and meet people in my constituency. Since the Leader of the Opposition lives there, I will be glad to take him around and introduce him to some of the people in my constituency. I am sure we will both learn something. This extends the four year restriction period to cover situations where an individual moves in the course of his employment. I was hoping the minister would extend the interpretation to foreign service officers or members of the armed forces who rent their homes while abroad on duty, who on their return are posted to another part of the country and dispose of their homes without re-entering them. I do not know how we would police the other step the hon. member suggests. I think we should take this step first. If a person returned from foreign service and sold the house while he was still a resident of Canada, he would qualify. If he lived in it for one day he would be all right. That might cost a lot of money. It would depend on how much the home was worth. Clause agreed to. On Clause 27. This is a clause which touches on the tanning industry and the production of leather footwear. Since this industry has found itself in unfortunate straits, can the minister explain why he feels it is necessary to add this new burden of taxation to those who are employed in the industry? Can he tell us how many employees will be affected and what the estimated gross revenue to the treasury will be? We do not have those figures. I would point out that income from adjustment assistance benefits, being revenue, is taxable in the same way as, for example, unemployment insurance benefits are taxable. It applies to those who work in the clothing and textile industry, just as it applies to those who work in the auto industry, or the auto parts industry, for example. Is there no way to streamline this procedure? Why should it be necessary for one department of government to make grants and for another department to turn around and tax them? I realize this is all in accordance with a beautiful civil service dream -- to make grants which appear to be beneficial on the surface and then to pull the money back by way of taxation. It is not enough for the minister to say he is now including the leather tanning industry and the footwear industry simply because others are affected. That is missing the whole point. Why should it be necessary to continue this complex formula of making grants and then recovering them through taxes, especially when we consider that this is a depressed industry which has suffered terribly as a result of the importation of foreign goods in this field due to the approach taken by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Do I take it from the minister's comments that the government is not even giving consideration to the possibility of a streamlining process in this area, even when it involves workers in a depressed industry? We are always ready to adopt new methods which appear to be an improvement on the old. Clause agreed to. On Clause 28. Something is being done here with regard to maintenance payments. There are real inequities here under the law. Initially, there was a decree, an order or a judgment. Now I see there is reference to a written agreement. I am glad to see that improvement. It seems to me that such orders shall provide for the maintenance of minor children; it is exceedingly hard on the caring spouse to tax such money as income. I realize it can be said that the spouse, if she is in a taxable position, can claim the children as hers, but in effect the benefit goes to the paying husband, or vice versa. I should like to see some relief for the woman who is separated or divorced from her husband and looking after the children, one who is not able to get the child-care allowance because she is not working. Under the income tax act we blithely tax her on the total amount she receives, including what is paid for the care of the children, and in too many instances that amount is far less than it really costs to maintain children. I should like to bring a degree of realism to this picture so that their position could be alleviated. Clause 28 is consequential upon clause 31. We allow a taxpayer to deduct maintenance; we are just talking about deductibility here, the deductibility of an alimony payment. At the moment it can only be deducted if it is paid directly to the other spouse. Now we are extending the deductibility if payment is made to a third person for the benefit of the spouse or the children; for example, to a university for education, to a mortgage company, etc. This is a relieving amendment and I do not think the hon. member will quarrel with it. This question of the written agreement has always caused a lot of trouble. I suppose this is being done by the department for the purpose of control. Has the department taken a look to see if there is some other way this can be done? I would say as a practising lawyer that this used to cause a great deal of difficulty. I think it is very useful that the hon. gentleman keeps in touch with the law. He may need it again, one never knows, and that goes for all of us, including my parliamentary secretary and myself. The Department of National Revenue needs some sort of evidence of separation unless it is reduced to some form of writing. At one time they had to do it by decree, but the hon. member knows that we extended that a few years ago. Yes, it has been broadened. Four o'clock. Perhaps we could pass clause 28 as we can deal with the same subject under clause 31. Clause agreed to. Madam Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe the minister unintentionally misinformed the House in respect of clause 12. I was wondering if he would review his answers to some of my questions so that perhaps we could have a clarification on Tuesday. I was simply asking about the difference between two types of reserves and I do not believe the answer was clear. It seems that really there was a slight misleading in the answer we got from the minister. It being four 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. Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is a general agreement to take private members' notice No. 18 standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Is that agreed, and that the other motions will stand? Agreed. Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East) moved: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of bringing in legislation to amend the Government Organization Act providing for a separate Department of Fisheries. Up to that time a separate department of fisheries had existed in this country going back to the time of Confederation. And rightly so, Madam Speaker, because not only back in the early days of the history of our country, but right up to the present time, the fishing industry has assumed an important place in the over-all economy of our country and, more particularly, in the economy of the Atlantic provinces of Canada, the eastern portion of the province of Quebec and the Pacific coast. As a result of the Government Organization Act amendment in 1971, what was known as the department of fisheries was merged with the new Department of the Environment. That department assumed as well responsibilities in a number of other areas of concern and for a number of other statutes which up to that time had been the responsibility of other departments of government, such as the Department of Transport and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, just to mention two. We opposed that aspect of the Government Organization Act because we felt, and put forward arguments in support of that feeling, that as a result of the merging of the responsibilities of fisheries with those of another department, which would have other responsibilities as well, this would diminish the relative importance of the fishing industry in the over-all governmental structure in Canada. This was especially true at a time when the fishing industry was facing very serious problems arising from the development of new technology which made it possible to harvest large quantities of fish never before possible, and at a time when it suddenly appeared that the great infinite fishing potential of the northwest Atlantic was threatened with virtual extinction. I might say that subsequent events have proven that our fears were well founded. To illustrate the importance of fisheries and the need for a separate department, let me just glance at the estimates for the Department of the Environment for 1974-75, which indicate that out of a total budget of $351 million, the fisheries and marine services of the department, as it is now known, accounts for $164 million, or over half of the budget for that department. It is true that we now have a Minister of State for Fisheries as a result of an announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and an order in council passed on August 8, 1974, setting up a separate Minister of State for Fisheries; but that minister does not preside over a department of fisheries. He is not responsible for the budget of a department of fisheries because there is no department of fisheries. The budgetary responsibilities for the Department of the Environment are quite properly those of the Minister of the Environment. I do not know exactly what role fisheries plays in relation to the Department of the Environment, although it has been spelled out in the order in council that the minister is responsible for a number of acts, including the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Fish Inspection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Fisheries Development Act and the Fisheries Price Support Act; in other words, all of the statutes relating to fisheries. He does not in fact have the administrative responsibilities because he does not preside over a separate department of fisheries. At a conference of the Atlantic provinces candidates of the Progressive Conservative party at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, in 1972, and again in Halifax in 1974, a resolution was passed calling for a separate department of fisheries in order to give fisheries its proper recognition within the Canadian economy. We called for the establishment of a separate department of fisheries, and under this new department for the launching of a vigorous, new, aggressive program to extend Canada's managerial control to the extremities of this country's continental shelf for the sake of the conservation and management of its marine resources. That is the policy of this party. The government discovered to its dismay, as it faced its electorate in 1974, that this had become a real issue in the Atlantic provinces. So the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a promise that the government would establish a separate department of fisheries, and I quote from the Montreal Star issue of June 27: The Liberal Atlantic conference resolution called for the establishment of a separate department of fisheries. That was subsequently confirmed by a statement made by the Prime Minister. That is a policy of the present government. The Liberal National convention of 1973 passed the following resolution: In view of the increasing importance of the fisheries to the people of Canada, particularly to the people of the coastal provinces, that there be re-established immediately a department to take charge of this area to be known as the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources. I am calling upon the government in this resolution which is now before the House, and which I hope will command the support of the House, to proceed with the implementation of that resolution passed by the Liberal party of Canada at its convention and of the resolution of the Liberal candidates from the Atlantic provinces at their meeting in Halifax last year, as well as the subsequent promise made to the people of Canada by the Prime Minister following the conference of Liberal candidates in Halifax. The reasons, to any one interested in fisheries -- and certainly that includes all members from the Atlantic provinces and a good many of the members from the province of British Columbia -- are very obvious, not only because of the serious problems facing the industry but because of the importance of the industry. For example, in 1973 the total value of Canada's fisheries amounted to over $301,687,000. For example, in my own province there are approximately 20,000 people who are directly or indirectly involved in the fishing industry. Indeed, it is our most important industry. That industry is going through a tremendous change, not only because of new technology but because of our failure to exercise the right and responsibility which are ours to extend our control for the purposes of management and conservation over the continental shelf. Hon. members talk of the Law of the Sea Conference which was recently concluded at Caracas and which will be resumed next month in Geneva. We may or may not obtain agreement at that conference. Our chances are much better than they were before, thanks to the support of the United States Congress. But the fact is that we may not be successful. In the event that we are not successful, I believe that the government has the responsibility, and in fact it is its intention, I believe, to take the necessary unilateral action. Of course, when you contemplate taking this kind of unilateral step, it is a measure of the concern that is felt in this country over what is happening to our fishing industry. For example, last year fish landings declined as follows by province: Newfoundland had a 24 per cent decline; Prince Edward Island, a 43 per cent decline; British Columbia, a 25 per cent decline; and New Brunswick, a 12 per cent decline. Notwithstanding inflation, there was a concomitant decline in the value of these landings as well. These declines in catches mean, of course, that there is a decline in the earnings not only of the fishermen but of the fish companies as well. This is probably the most serious problem facing the industry today because expenses are not only continuing but, due to inflation, are escalating. Owners of deep sea trawlers returning today with less than a total catch have to pay the expenses of the trip. The fishermen, of course, participate in a share of the catch, and the result is that their earnings decline accordingly. That, I may add, is the subject right now of a very serious dispute in the province of Newfoundland which has practically tied up the total industry. We are now in the grip of a strike of deep sea trawlermen over what is known as the co-adventurer system, a system which has been in effect not only for generations but for hundreds of years whereby the fishermen participate in the catch with the ship owner, and if there is no catch they have no earnings. The expenses of the fishermen continue. They have to feed, clothe and house their families at the same inflated rates as everyone else, and of course if they do not earn money on the voyage, they cannot go to the supermarket to buy the groceries necessary to feed their families, or continue to heat their homes, or provide clothing for their children. So our Newfoundland deep sea fishermen today are on strike. They are striking for an end to the co-adventurer system. There is much sympathy for them. I personally support their stand because in this day and age it is generally recognized, given the importance of the industry to Canada and given the fact that the industry contributes substantially to Canada's balance of payments and to helping feed the world, that Canada's fishermen should operate under some system of guaranteed income. Our fishermen are striking for this very principle. What the outcome of this strike will be is difficult to say, but certainly the government of Canada has a great responsibility. Indeed, under the constitution the government of Canada has all the responsibility for fisheries: it has total jurisdiction. Whatever jurisdiction is enjoyed by the provinces is enjoyed by the advice and consent of the federal government through an exchange of notes. Yet so far as this dispute involving the industry in Newfoundland is concerned, a strike which could have very serious consequences for the economy of our province, thus far the government of Canada is but a passive bystander. I hope that the new minister of state responsible for fisheries will discuss with his counterpart in the province of Newfoundland ways and means in which the government of Canada can assist directly in bringing about a settlement of that dispute. I have no hesitation in saying that I admire the present minister of state responsible for fisheries. The only thing I regret is that, because of the limitations of the present statute on the government's organization, the minister cannot be truly effective as the fisheries minister because he does not have the ultimate responsibility of presiding over a department of fisheries of Canada. That brings me to the resolution which is now before the House. This applies to the Pacific fisheries as well and, of course, to a lesser extent, to the inland freshwater fisheries. This industry is going through the most serious crisis of its long and troubled existence. Now more than ever before we need to address ourselves to this problem by having the activities of the various statutes of this parliament dealing with fisheries under a separate administration and under a separate department, as it was up to 1971. I call upon my colleagues in the House, and particularly my colleagues who sit on the opposite side of the House, to address themselves to this resolution in a sympathetic way, bearing in mind the fact that their party and their caucus is indeed committeed to do just that, so that we can get on with the job of dealing with the very serious difficulties facing the industry today. Just to give an idea of how serious the problem is, even if we do succeed in March at Geneva in obtaining agreement to extend our control for purposes of management and conservation over the continental shelf and its extremities, it is estimated that it will take at least five years for us to bring just the groundfishery, the mainstay of the industry, back to the stage where it was before the present overfishing began to take its toll. It will take five years to bring it back to the commercially viable industry that it was for many years. That I merely state to illustrate the seriousness of the problem. It would merely add strength to the resolutions already adopted by the Progressive Conservative caucus, by the Progressive Conservative convention by the Liberal convention, and by the Liberal Atlantic caucus. Perhaps as a result of this resolution the government may see fit to amend the Government Organization Act and once again institute a separate department of fisheries which would then be able more properly to address itself to the very serious problems facing this industry. Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate, first of all to thank the hon. member for St. John East (Mr. McGrath) for having taken this opportunity to draw the attention of the House, however generally, to certain fishing matters. He will not, on listening to my speech, that I do not agree with his proposals regarding organization, but I can say that I do share his concern about the situation of the fisheries, not only now but generally. I believe in the immediacy of the problem in the fishery, and I hope the problems we have will give the government the opportunity, and the public support which I think is needed, to intervene in the fishing industry. I believe there is a need for state intervention in this industry at this time. One of the problems in the industry has been due to the fact that in some areas it is a seasonal industry. Added to that is the fact that we are dependent on the United States in that three quarters of our production is marketed in the United States, at least from eastern Canada. I believe this has made us dependent on a marketing organization or a marketing structure which has been playing with the industry for years and which makes the fishing industry an uncertain one for the fishermen as well as for the plant. I hope that this bad side of the cycle which we see now in marketing, regardless of the reasons -- which are different from other aspects of marketing -- will be corrected. So I say, I hope that the government will intervene in the fishing industry, and that the industry will understand and accept the type of intervention which I think is needed. I do not speak of intervention in the sense that the government has to take over the industry; I hope the government will intervene, as it has in the last year in some cases, to give financial support or price support or provide financing for inventory, for stocks, or to help the industry with storage. I believe we are going to be involved in such a way and that we might as well take positive action and have some permanent organizations placed on the statutes and put in operation in this country. I believe that we should have a marketing organization funded by the government which will have enough money to build sufficient storage in Atlantic Canada and which will be in a position to study the marketing structure of our product in the United States. This will give us better information than we have now so that we are less dependent on those who market fish abroad. This marketing agency should have enough capital to build storage for the fishery, and to lend the fishery money so that fishery products can be sotred in eastern Canada, so fishermen will not have to go out and distress sell, which kills the market. This happens mainly with small, Canadian owned companies which do not have financing, and God knows that in Canada we cannot depend on the banks to help, especially small Canadian entrepreneurs in situations like this. I believe representatives from the fishing industry should be represented in the marketing organization, including fishermen and plant owners, as well as representatives of labour, consumers, the federal government and provincial governments. This agency could guarantee that fishermen would be paid a certain price. It should be in a position to know in advance what price the market will bear for our products and thereby guarantee the plants a price for a certain quota so that the fisherman is assured of a fair price. I believe this is very detrimental to our industry and the people who operate it. I assure the hon. member that I share his concern about the immediate problems. I hope that the government will profit from this crisis and intervene in the fishing industry in a way which will give us permanently more information in our hands and better protection for our plants and for our fishermen. I also hope that the government and the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) will look at the tariff situation. For example, if we ship our fish products by blocks to the United States, there is, I believe, no tariff at all, or very little; but as soon as we touch it, or as soon as there is any attempt at any value added tax or forward integration, the tariffs go dramatically up. I believe the government of this country should make an attempt to negotiate with the Americans, perhaps in the context of the current GATT negotiations, in order to get a better deal for the fisheries. I do not know the situation in the west coast fisheries but I suspect it is about the same. In the case of the Atlantic provinces, it is the nicest example of economic colonization that we have seen in this country for some time. I find it difficult to reconcile the objectives expressed by the hon. member on the question of government reorganization with his party's stated concern about government spending and red tape. When one talks about cutting out agencies or services within departments and establishing them in new, smaller departments, that can only lead to more bureaucratic organization. In my constituency fishing is the most important industry, if not in financial terms then certainly in terms of people. At no time, however, has any fisherman or any fishing co-operative, plant worker or owner brought up this question. What they are concerned about is the government's responsiveness to their problems. I think it was a good move to merge the department of fisheries, which I believe was the smallest department, with the Department of the Environment because there is a direct relationship between environmental matters and fisheries. Generally speaking, the most important aspect of our fisheries is the protection of resources. You are speaking against the policies of your own caucus. No, I am not. That resolution was to the effect that there should be a minister responsible for fisheries matters. In my view that is what we have, and a good one. That is not what the resolution said. The Atlantic Liberal Action Plan makes very good reading for anyone interested in Atlantic matters, as I know the hon. member is. Being from Newfoundland he certainly understands the importance people attach to their regional identity. When he refers to the minister of fisheries as being from the north shore of New Brunswick, however, I must point out that the minister is from the east shore and that he understands why it is important to the Atlantic provinces to retain proper geographical definition. There are not only the day to day problems of the fisheries to be concerned about; there are occasions when disaster or disease might strike the resource, and here the responsiveness of the government is very important. On many occasions since the new department was set up I have brought problems to its attention and have always received an excellent response. What about the pollution of the Bay at Caraquet? That is one of the bays that produces the best oysters in the world. There was urgency to that problem and the government gave $150,000 to deal with it immediately so that the reputation of such a good product would not be ruined. Because there was a bigger department with a bigger budget and better organization, it was possible to transfer funds from one part of the department to another. Another example of the work of the Department of the Environment regarding an important aspect of the industry is the creation of the small craft harbours branch, which has proven to be an effective and responsive arm of government. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). On fishermen? He said that one of the things that has to be done for the fishing industry is to protect our resource, to protect the sea. May I remind him that we must also protect our inland lakes and rivers? That gets me into this debate in another way because in the Winnipeg area we have the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation which has some problems to which I hope the government is giving attention. Despite the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Breau) skirted the issue in the motion and seemed to express complete satisfaction with the present arrangement, it certainly was my understanding during the election campaign that the Liberals in the Atlantic provinces, like the Conservatives, were promising a separate department of fisheries. I understand that our candidates in that area were doing likewise. By bringing to this debate the approval of the third party and the fourth party, and the independent member for Moncton (Mr. Jones), I am making it unanimous. I notice that some of the British Columbia members are wanting to get into this debate so I shall take only a few moments. I want to support the motion and I suspect that, even though it appears that it is due for the usual treatment in that the motion is going to be talked out, the government does not mind the subject being discussed, and aired in this House. Indeed, despite all the defence which may be put up respecting the fisheries activities of the federal government being under the Department of the Environment, everyone must realize that it is awkward to have a statute which says that the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauvé) is the minister of fisheries for Canada, and to have an order in council which says that the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc) is Minister of State with responsibilities for administering the various acts of parliament relating to fisheries. In one way or another this mix-up ought to be straightened out. I enjoyed my hon. friend's attempt across the way to chide my friends to my right, who are usually on an economy kick, for wanting to establish what he called a new agency. I do not think it is fair to label a request for a department of fisheries a request for a new agency. After all, a fisheries branch or department is as old as Canada itself. I commend the hon. member for St. John's East for raising this matter this afternoon. Come five o'clock, we shall still be dealing with it. Madam Speaker, I do not intend to speak long on this motion, as others from other parts of Canada also wish to speak on it. Let me say that I support it. There are in my riding several harbours, among which are Steveston Harbour, one of the finest fishing harbours in British Columbia, Ladner Harbour, and Gunderson Slough. In addition, there is resident in my riding Mr. Homer Stevens, chief of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. He ran against me in the last election but came in last; but that does not mean that he does not know how to run a fisheries union, because he is well respected by his men and has a great knowledge of the fishery. I support the hon. member's motion and will not repeat what he said because he spoke so well. What concerns me is a statement made by my hon. friend of the Liberal party regarding government involvement in fisheries. I sometimes wonder -- perhaps this question should be on the order paper -- how many fishermen are involved in the work of the department of fisheries. I say this because when Roberts Bank was built in my area, it was built in one of the finest crabbing areas of British Columbia. I talked to fishermen about it and to government people. The fishermen said that they had talked to Department of the Environment people, to fisheries people, to Department of Public Works people and others, and had been assured that the superport would not kill off the crab in those waters. According to the experts, engineering feasibility studies had been done, and everyone was certain the crab would not be killed. It is sad to report that now you no longer find crab around Roberts Bank superport, especially on the southern side, because the tides did not do what department of fisheries experts had predicted. The fishermen of my riding have often said that nobody listens to them, and that is why this motion is so important for the fishermen of this country. We need a separate department of fisheries with a minister who is not responsible to other ministers and who can stand on his own two feet and tell other ministers what needs to be done. For these reasons I support the motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and I will now sit down to allow other members to participate in this debate. Madam Speaker, at the outset let me say to colleagues who have spoken that I will bring their representations to the attention of the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc). Hon. members have raised valid points which merit examination. It is particularly important that we trace our way back to the events that led to the present combination within one federal department of various components which previously, to one degree or another, functioned separately. The department of fisheries was established as a separate entity about 40 years ago. We have learned a lot since then, environmentally speaking. In 1968 the fisheries department was amalgamated with forestry. Four years ago, in 1971, came a much larger move toward unification, the creation of the Department of the Environment. The choice of this name was in itself not simply a matter of new symbolism but a reflection of changed perceptions, a new way of looking at the world and at ourselves, not only in Canada but throughout the world. The creation of Environment Canada was a response by the people of this country, through their government, to a challenge which, although it did not sneak up on us overnight, did shock and startle the world because of the abruptness of our recognition and the immensity of the threat. It was not that we had not been warned. Ecologists, conservationists, wildlife people, people who specialized in meteorology, in fisheries, in the uses of land, had all warned us for years that trouble was on the way. The fact that at a governmental level these warnings were coming from different offices, from separate observation posts, was in itself an indication of the kind of trouble we were in, in Canada and elsewhere on this spaceship we call Earth. The great service done for us by people like the late Rachel Carson was that they reconnected us with reality. They opened the eyes of the world to the inter-relationship of the various components of the biosphere. More important, they gave back to an urban world a country person's sometimes native recognition of the fact that we are not strangers or separate in the biospheric mosaic. They reminded us that we do not so much come into this world as out of it. As we commenced this voyage of rediscovery, it became very clear that the problems of the environment were, at their core, problems of human perception; not the result of malevolence or greed, but mostly of a failure to see that everything was connected to everything else. We were in trouble because of a fragmented, unreal perception of the physical world and an exaggeration of its capacity to absorb abuse. The next phase was to do something about changing our thinking. In arriving at true environmental wisdom, part of the task has been to avoid mistaking the symptoms for the cause. Polluted rivers and streams and coastal areas, smoke stained skies, thermal inversions, possibly even weather fluctuations, were the outward manifestations not of a self-destructive attack by man on the environment but of a distorted comprehension of the way that this infinitely intricate biospheric engine works and fits together. The hon. member uses big words. Madam Speaker, I thought my remarks were extremely relevant. I have always assumed that in private members' hour members are given some latitude. In any event, if we are to invoke the rule of relevancy I suggest it should also apply to the remarks the hon. member made earlier. Order, please. The parliamentary secretary should deal primarily with the motion before the House. Madam Speaker, I was addressing myself to the motion. And talking it out in the process. Madam Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I have listened with great interest to what the hon. member said. I am looking at a full page advertisement which lists 34 items put out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the representatives of his party during the July 8 election compaign. As item 24, the Prime Minister stated under "fisheries" that he would appoint a full-time minister to administer the fisheries program. Unfortunately this has not been done. We have a Minister of State for fisheries. How does the hon. member relate his comments to the pledge made to the people of Atlantic Canada that we would have a full-time minister with sufficient clout to look after the immense problems the fisheries are facing at this time? Madam Speaker, the answer to that question is self-evident. As stated by the hon. member who introduced the resolution, we have a minister who is working full time. He is a very good minister. He understands the problems of the fishing industry. This minister is working extremely well with the whole community of fishermen. Hear, hear! Since the name of the problem was fragmentation -- tunnel vision -- it followed that we must avoid compartmentalized and ill-co-ordinated solutions. The goal, as many of our young people put it, has been to get our thinking together. The creation of the federal Department of the Environment was a signal that the government of Canada was determined to the fullest practical extent to begin our response by bringing our approaches into a co-ordinated pattern. It was decided not to strike simply at symptoms, not only to control, not only to cure or to rollback, but to prethink and prevent. It was decided, for example, that the problem of eutrophication or any other form of pollution in the Great Lakes, or air pollution in Toronto or Montreal, or the conservation of the polar bear, or the salmon, or the optimum use of land, were all part of one major operation, the preservation and enhancement of the Canadian environment. Let me tell the House how this has worked so far in terms of actual programs. One of the major ventures in which Environment Canada is presently engaged is in cleanup of industrial water pollution. The strategy here has been to establish national base line standards, a sort of minimum platform for water quality across the land. It is a program of point-source control regulations aimed at the rollback of water pollution. Regulations are scheduled for about 20 industrial sectors. The first industry to come under these regulations was the pulp and paper industry. The chlor alkali industry, Canada's major source of mercury contamination, was next. Regulations have been issued for the petroleum refining industry. Guidelines for the fish processing industry will be forthcoming. My time is rapidly running out. Perhaps I might skip some of the remarks I would have made if I had had a little more time. Perhaps the greatest challenge that our society faces in meeting the challenges of our time is the achievement of a sane, reasoned balance of interests and objectives. We cannot set our resource and environmental goals as if they were separate and then plot lonely paths toward them. The quality of life, the quality of the environment, is a blend of physical and economic values. In pursuing our goals, success lies in the reasonable tradeoff. The achievement of solutions is not a matter of winning an adversary debate, not, for instance, a matter of energy winning out over environment, or vice versa. It is a matter of recognizing that total victory for one side means defeat for all. The reconciliation of resource, conservation and environmental interests is a necessity of today, both in the private sector and in the public. It is very much in the interests of Canadians that zealotry, extremism and overkill be avoided, that we seek that state of total national well-being which reflects both environmental and economic health. The health, the productivity, of our fisheries is an aspect of the total well-being not only of Canada, but of the world. The preservation of our natural environment is similarly crucial. It is a healthy thing that these aspects of our heritage be looked upon by people working closely and in concert; healthy for Canada, healthy for the fisheries. We have recognized from the beginning the special importance of the fisheries to Canada. One only has to look to the Government Organization Act, 1970, to see that the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauvé) is also the minister of fisheries for Canada. As a further demonstration of this concern, the government in August, 1974 appointed a Minister of State to assist the minister in fishery matters. It is my view, Madam Speaker, that on the basis of the historical evidence, the scientific evidence, on the basis of common sense, the present unified structure gives us the most effective instrument setting in which to meet and deal with the problems we now, and will in the future, confront. For many years the fishermen in my area have been discriminated against in matters of safety and security on the coast. It is only recently, through the representations of the new Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), that we have been able to get the beginning of a successful hearing to once and for all bring to the attention of the people on the coast the difficulties with which we are faced. There is not sufficient security for our fishermen. We are lacking in naval power in the coast guard. We are lacking in a number of areas which the Minister of State (Fisheries) has finally brought to the attention of the Department of National Defence and other departments. The fishermen's union, the co-operatives in British Columbia, and by that I mean all the companies, are indeed pleased with the progress that has been made on security. With the present Minister of State (Fisheries), we have an opportunity to prove further to the fishermen of this country on the east coast, the lakes and northern areas that he is indeed a man who can take on the responsibility of fisheries. He has sufficient clout to take on the job he has. In my particular area the fishermen are heartened as never before, because for the first time they have a fisheries minister they can talk to directly. Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m. At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order. The House met at 2 p.m. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the wish of hon. members on all sides of the House that this motion be taken under consideration as the first order of business under orders of the day. Agreed. Mr. Speaker, since the House gave unanimous consent authorizing the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to present his motion under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion of extreme urgency since it relates to the application of Standing Orders 43 and 28. Considering that, under the terms of Standing Order 43, any member can request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent matter and that, on the other hand, under Standing Order 28 any member who wishes to speak must rise in his place and address the Speaker designating him by his title, though it may be only to oppose the unanimity required under Standing Order 43, and that I have already pointed out this matter to Your Honour whereupon Your Honour said the ruling would be given later on in this regard, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard): That this House study without delay whether Standing Order 28 should apply even in the case of a motion presented under Standing Order 43, and that those two standing orders be deferred to the standing committee of the House for study and report. As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put. That all hon. members gather in the railway committee room on Thursday, February 20, during the evening for fellowship across the Canadian cultural barriers in Brotherhood under the Fatherhood of God and, furthermore inasmuch as Mrs. Betty Kennedy is the national chairman for Brotherhood Week during this International Women's Year, that an especially cordial invitation be extended to the sisterhood in this hon. House, realizing that in fellowship with the distaff side of the human family is the only basis for lasting brotherhood. Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member who proposed his motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, partly out of a strict adherence to the rules regarding urgent and pressing necessity and partly, I must confess out of a desire not to put any hon. members of the House into the embarrassing position of withholding their consent for discussion of such an important topic, I would have to find that despite the extreme importance and interest of the matter to all members of the House and, I am sure, unanimous support of the idea, that I will withhold, in my discretion, putting it to the House because of the absence of the element of urgent and pressing necessity. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask permission of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the urgent and pressing necessity for adequate opportunity for backbench members of the House to raise matters of importance during the daily question period, and in view of the fact that the present length of the question period does not adequately permit this, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke): That immediate consideration should be given to lengthening the daily question period to one hour and furthermore consideration should also be given to designating two days per week on which 20 minutes of the one hour question period be reserved exclusively for members of the House who are not designated opposition critics and who do not sit on the front bench. Order, please. The hon. member raises a question of extreme importance and interest to all members of the House I am sure. A review of the procedures of the House, in so far as they relate to any opportunity any member may have, to put his views forward could be extremely important and of great interest. It is a metter of constant concern to all members, but I think fairness the motion lacks the element of urgency or emergency which is contemplated by the rule. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski): That the Prime Minister repeal his appointment of the member from the other place as a spokesman for the province of Alberta, or alternatively, that he appoint him to a cabinet position so that he may be held responsible for his outlandish and false statements. The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent? There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time. Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-51, to increase the representation of the Northwest Territories in the House of Commons and to establish a commission to readjust the electoral boundaries of the Northwest Territories. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. Hon. Jean Chrétien (President of Treasury Board) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. On the Order: Government notices of motions: February 13, 1975-- The President of the Privy Council: That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear evidence on and to consider Canadian policy with respect to the question of continuing defence cooperation with the United States and in particular the future of the North American Air Defence agreement (NORAD); and That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear reports from Canadian delegations which have met with delegations from foreign parliaments or attended inter-parliamentary assemblies. Order, please. Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House. (Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 348, 361, 450, 465, 550, 780, 819, 871, 1,141, 1,153, 1,207, 1,213, 1,267, 1,284, 1,296, 1,348 and 1,349. If questions Nos. 156, 276, 715 and 1,360 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 1,098 and 1,121? I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. 1. (a) Over how many "off-main-line" trackage miles is grain normally moved (b) over how many of these trackage miles can a fully loaded hopper car move, with due regard for elevator loading clearances, track loading limits, etc. (c) over how many miles for a 3/4 and for a half loaded car respectively (d) when trackage is subject to safe load limits, can the loaded weight of the hopper car be accurately assessed, to avoid dangerous overloading? 2. (a) Allowing for routine maintenance, how many car-days should these cars be expected to deliver over a normal season (b) how many car-days did they operate (c) on the average, how many cars would be sitting idle (i.e. not moving, not loading, not unloading) on a typical shipping day (d) for what reason would these cars be sitting idle? 3. (a) For how many car-days were some of these cars diverted from moving prairie grain (b) what was the maximum number of cars diverted (c) what was the per diem rate (d) how much per diem rental was collected and what happened to it (e) what were the diversion dates? 4. (a) For the in-service period of these cars, how many tons of wheat were moved (b) how many tons did these cars move (c) how many tons were moved by other cars (d) what are the comparable figures for all other grains (e) by best estimate, how many tons of wheat will have to be moved during each of the next five seasons (f) how many of these tons will move by other cars (g) how many tons will move via the 2,000 hopper cars (h) on a car-day basis, what per cent utilization will these 2,000 cars experience, by season? 1. (a) "Off-main-line" trackage: CN 2,529 miles, 263,000 maximum; 1,775 miles, 220,000 maximum; 3,752 miles, 177,000 maximum; CP Rail 1,852 miles, 263,000 maximum; 3,800 miles, 220,000 maximum; 135 miles, 177,000 maximum. (b) CN 2,529 miles: CP Rail 1,852 miles; (c) Three quarter: Strict control is exercised by the railways in placing hopper cars to avoid exceeding branch line track load limits. Weights shown on railway way-bills can be in error. Official weights are determined on out turn at terminal grain elevators. 3. (a) None. The cars are restricted to grain service; (b) A total of 834 cars have been diverted to the handling of Prairie grain east or Thunder Bay to and including movements to the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Ports; (c) $7.50 per car day while assigned east of Thunder Bay; (d) $415,793 collected by the Canadian Wheat Board payable to the Receiver General covering 55,439 car days assigned east of Thunder Bay; (e) January-April 1974. 1. Is it the intention of DND to have all its existing documents, such as technical publications and forms, etc., relating to all military equipment, ground, air and sea, defence headquarters and military base stationery, etc., translated and printed in French and, if not, which forms or documents will be? 2. Is a programme to have all the above-mentioned printed in French now in progress and, if so, on what date will it be completed? 3. Will all existing documents in military colleges and training schools be translated and printed in French? 4. Will any new documents, technical publications and forms, etc., be ordered in both French and English? 5. What will the total cost be to translate and print all existing DND documents, technical publications and forms, etc., (including military colleges, training schools, air, land and sea divisions) in French? 6. What is the projected increased cost to order any new Department of National Defence documents, etc., in English and French? 1. The policy of the Department is to provide in bilingual format all orders, directives, instructions, form notices, information letters and bulletins and documents intended for other than local use, plus all manuals including general and technical publications. Local orders, recreational facilities are printed in the language of the unit or formation. Exceptions are that in the National Capital Region, and other locations in which there is a significant number of military personnel of both language groups, they are printed in bilingual format. 2. Translation into French and printing in bilingual format has been in process for a number of years and is continuing. Except for technical publications the backlog should be eliminated in a very few years. The pace of translation of technical publications will be geared to the availability of translators having the necessary technical experience. 3. Yes. 4. Yes. 5. The total cost of the program cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy at this time due to the long time frame. 6. It is estimated that it costs 40 per cent more to publish documents in bilingual format than in a single language. Has the Department of National Defence chartered any PWA Boeing 707 aircraft to carry freight to Europe and/or the Middle East from January 1, 1974 to the date this question is answered and, if so (a) what was the number of charters contracted for (b) what was the destination of each charter (c) what was the total cost of these charters (d) for what reason were DND aircraft not used? Yes: (a) Three; (b) all three operated to Lahr, Germany; (c) $32,400; (d) DND aircraft were fully committed to higher priority activity. 1. What is the current cost to the public for training to operational proficiency a (a) transport pilot (b) combat pilot (c) radio navigator (d) dentist (e) medical officer (f) lawyer (g) tank driver (h) long range pilot (i) marine engineer (j) construction engineer (k) computer programmer (l) ship's captain? 2. What were the training costs to the public for each category in 1963 and 1967? 1. The cost of training the following trades and professions for 1974 is as follows excluding pay to the students: (a) and (h). --- --- These costs include only DND disbursement and do not include any federal contributions and grants to post secondary educational institutions. (l) The training of ship's captain cannot be accurately costed as appointment is based on experience and merit following junior officer training. 2. The training costs to DND for each category in the years 1963 and 1967, where available, are as follows: 1. What was the total value of Olympic stamps sold as of October 1? 2. What was the total cost of producing such stamps sold as of October 1? 3. What payments were made to COJO as of October 1 from Olympic stamp sales? 1. $1,630,277. 2. $375,952 in manufacturing costs only, exclusive of other costs. 3. $225,000 has been transferred to the Olympic account of the Department of Finance. The management of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation advised as follows: 1. 1. What documents of any and all description (such as any type of form, records, stationery, employee directives, etc.) within the entire Department of National Health and Welfare have to be translated into the French language? 2. Retroactive to what date will all past records of the Department have to be translated? 3. At what date must all of these translations be completed? 4. What amount of money was spent in the years 1973 and 1974 for translating such documents? 5. What will be the total cost of translating all existing documents, forms, stationery, records, etc. within the Department's entire operation? 6. What is the total additional yearly cost of ordering all new forms, stationery, etc. in two languages compared to the cost in one language? I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. As of November 20, 1974, it is estimated that 10,700 pages of forms and directives remain to be translated. 2. Not applicable. Past records are not translated. 3. These translations will be completed at the earliest possible date. 4. Costs are not apportioned according to the types of activities mentioned above. However, the total demand for translation as represented by the number of words is available for the years 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. The production in words for 1972-1973 was 4,291,663; for 1973-1974 it was 5,048,963. On the basis of an analysis of operating costs for the Translation Bureau, the total operating costs are estimated at about ten cents per word for the two years in question. 5. It is estimated that the cost of translating these documents will amount to $131,000. 6. There is no additional ordering cost. 1. How many occurrences of accidental or emergency depressurization that required an aircraft to decrease altitude in order to regain cabin atmospheric pressure were there on Air Canada passenger flights at home and abroad in 1973 and 1974? 2. In how many of these instances (a) did the oxygen masks fail to be presented to all passengers (b) was oxygen not supplied to all passengers? 3. How do the above figures compare to the airline industry average for the same time period? 4. What steps have been taken recently to decrease the number of such instances? 1. Has the Department of National Defence conducted studies to determine the choice of armoured vehicles to replace the Centurion tanks now used as the main component of our armoured regiments? 2. Has consideration been given to purchasing (a) the British Chieftain (b) the German Leopard (c) the American M-60? 3. Has the Department made inquiries as to the possibility of leasing tanks and, if so, what governments were consulted and what were the terms? 4. What were the advantages and disadvantages of each type of tank considered (a) the Chieftain (b) the Leopard (c) the M-60 (d) others? 5. Have plans been completed to acquire new tanks and, if so, on what date will they be delivered to the various armoured units across Canada and overseas? 6. How many tanks will be acquired? 7. What is the expected cost of the programme? Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. The Department of National Defence maintains current information and detail specifications on several types of armoured vehicles. 3. The department has not made any formal inquiries about the possibility of leasing tanks but one firm has made an informal proposal to Canada to lease tanks to the Canadian forces. 4. Each tank has some specific advantages over the others in terms of relative cost, size, weight, range and availability. However, these relative advantages and disadvantages are NATO classified information. 5. No. 6 and 7. Not applicable. 1. Did any employees of the Slocan Valley Community Library pay into the Unemployment Insurance Commission or had pay deductions made to the UIC in order that they could qualify for UIC benefits in the years 1972, 1973 and 1974? 2. Have any employees of the Slocan Valley Community Library ever received UIC benefits on the basis of their employment at this library during the years 1972, 1973 and 1974? 1. Employees of the Slocan Valley Community Library (the correct name of this organization is Community Learning Unlimited) paid unemployment insurance premiums during 1973 and 1974, since they were working in insurable employment, as defined by the Department of National Revenue/Taxation. 2. At various times during 1973 and 1974, 12 persons qualified for and received unemployment insurance benefits. How many applications for positions as stewards and stewardesses were received by Air Canada in the years 1970 to 1974 from persons whose stated home address was (a) Newfoundland (b) Prince Edward Island (c) New Brunswick (d) Nova Scotia (e) Quebec (f) Ontario and, in each case, how many were accepted? The management of Air Canada advises as follows: Accurate records, indicating the number of applications received by Air Canada for positions as flight attendants, or records with any real degree of validity, are not available for the years prior to 1973. However, since the beginning of 1973, a complete account of all applicants interviewed -- which represents those whose qualifications met basic minimum requirements -- has been maintained. Application forms from those whose qualifications are not up to minimum standards set by Air Canada are returned with appropriate explanations. Following are statistics related to the years 1973 and 1974. 1. How many applications were received by the government for Canada Pension Plan disability pensions for each year 1972 and 1973 and, of these, how many were approved? 2. (a) How many people received disability pensions for each year (b) what was the average amount received? 1. Disability pension applications received by Canada Pension Plan Head office: 1972, 18,009; 1973, 19,126; Approvals: 1972, 72.7% or 13,273; 1973, 72.8% or 13,924. 2. (a) Disability Recipients: 1972, 19,330 (December); 1973, 29,636 (December); (b) Average monthly payment: 1972, $92.11; 1973, $93,75. --- --- Excluded are those who were beneficiaries sometime during these years but who were no longer beneficiaries in December and those who may have received retroactive payment at this time. Will the Department of Transport release the noise level studies arranged through the Department of the Environment, for the Canadian National Railway, pertaining to noise levels resulting from rail and waterfront activity in the City and District of North Vancouver and, if the study is not available, for what reason? The study referred to in the question is a private one conducted by Canadian National for their internal use. The Ministry of Transport did not participate in the study and does not propose to release the study results. 1. Is the government committed to allowing Canadian Pacific Airlines rights to serving Saskatoon and Regina in Saskatchewan for domestic and/or international flights? 2. Has Canadian Pacific Airlines made application to serve Saskatoon or Regina for domestic and/or international flights? The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. No. 2. No. Is the government giving consideration to an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act to provide for the payment of pension at married rates following a pensioner's divorce so long as the pensioner is compelled by court order to pay maintenance to the former spouse and/or the pensioner's children? No consideration is being given to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to provide the payment of married rate following a recipient's divorce. Married rate is not paid to a recipient of an allowance if he or she is divorced as his or her spouse is no longer recognized for allowance purposes. With respect to dependent children, married rate may be authorized on behalf of the first child and additional allowance may be paid for each dependent child provided the child is a "dependent child" as specified in the Act. 1. Has it been the practice of Cabinet Ministers to exchange gifts when attending meetings outside Canada on government business and, if so, is this a usual practice or one that only relates to specific visits and, in either case, have there been occasions when this has occurred and what are the names of the Cabinet Ministers who have been involved in such gift exchanges? 2. In each instance (a) was the gift received by the Cabinet Minister considered his own property or the property of the country (b) was the gift made to a foreign dignitary paid for by the Cabinet Minister in question or the government (c) what were the gifts exchanged? 3. Have there been any occasions where a Cabinet Minister visiting outside of Canada received a gift from a foreign government where there was no exchange of such gifts and, in these instances, was the gift retained by the Cabinet Minister or did it become government property and, in cases where this has happened, what was the specific item received? There is no policy for exchanging gifts. On certain occasions, such as official visits when they are guests of another country, Ministers have presented gifts to their hosts on behalf of the Government of Canada. Sometimes the host has presented a gift to the visiting Canadian Ministers. The same general situation prevails when dignitaries from other countries visit Canada officially and are guests of the Government of Canada. The gifts selected for presentation to hosts abroad or to visitors to Canada have been of a personal nature intended to be retained by them as a souvenir of the occasion and of Canada. Enquiries among Ministers indicate that the gifts they have received have been of the same character, i.e. personal and intended as a souvenir of the occasion and of the country of the donor. In what way will the government ensure that the 5 per cent sales tax reduction on building materials will be passed on to the consumer? I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the answer to this question was contained in the answer to Question No. 1,191, which may be found in Hansard, January 29, 1975, page 2714. What percentage of the sales tax on building materials refers to (a) housing (b) commercial construction? I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that approximately one third of the estimated revenue from the sales tax on building materials was derived from materials used in residential construction and two thirds from materials used in non-residential construction. 1. In the period March 31, 1973 to March 31, 1974, on how many occasions did a Minister of the Crown employ, or otherwise arrange for the services of, a freelance or contract speech writer? 2. In each case (a) who was the Minister (b) what was the fee (c) what was the occasion of the speech? Return tabled. 1. In 1965, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1972 and 1973 (a) what was the number of foreign-owned fishing vessels fishing on the East Coast of Canada (i) above the 50th parallel (ii) below the 50th parallel (b) what were the countries of origin of such vessels (c) what was the tonnage? 2. For the same years (a) what was the number of foreign-owned fishing vessels fishing on the West Coast of Canada above the 55th parallel (b) what were the countries of origin of such vessels (c) what was the tonnage? 3. In each case, what were the reported catches on the East Coast of the species (a) cod (b) haddock (c) halibut (d) herring (e) pollock (f) silver hake (g) ocean perch? 4. In each case, what were the reported catches on the West Coast of the species (a) halibut (b) salmon (c) cod? 5. During the same years, what was the number of Canadian-owned vessels having a fishing range in excess of 100 miles in the four areas designated, their tonnage and catch on the species designated? Return tabled. 1. Return tabled. Question No. 1,360-- 1. Did the government request J.D. Herman, M.D., to do a survey of the disabilities of the servicemen (all three services) who were prisoners of war in the European Theatre during World War II and, if so, on what date was this report requested? 2. How many questionnaires were mailed out to ex-prisoners of war in April 1973 and what were the questions asked? 3. Has Dr. Herman completed and reported the results of his survey and, if not, for what reason? Return tabled. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to answers to certain order paper questions being made orders for returns rather than answering them in the usual manner so that the answers appear in Hansard. On February 5, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred to this problem. At that time the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) replied setting forth what he said was the procedure the government followed in deciding whether or not to make a question an order for return. I quote from the parliamentary secretary's statement which appears at page 2931 in Hansard : The general practice we follow now is that all answers that will take over half a page to three-quarters of a page in Hansard are made orders for returns. Mr. Speaker, I refer specifically to question No. 426 and the answer tabled last Wednesday, February 12. The question asked for information regarding appointments or employment received by candidates of the Liberal party since the general election of July 8, 1974. The answer listed the names of ten Liberal candidates who were placed on the public payroll following defeat by the electors. These names do not appear in Hansard because the government used the device of tabling the answer. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be contended, to cite the formula outlined by the parliamentary secretary, that the printing of these names in Hansard would take up more than half to three-quarters of the page. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a glaring example of the government tabling an embarrassing answer so that it will not appear in Hansard. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the government should not be able, by using the procedure of tabling answers, to hide information which shows the manner in which it rewards party faithful from the public trough. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding a question having to do with the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill -- starred question No. 1,526. I endeavoured to get this information by means of an ordinary question placed on the order paper in the month of October, I think it was -- I do not have it before me. It has to do with pensions and the amount paid to Mr. Pickersgill when he headed the Transport Commission. The answer previously given was completely without information as far as answering the question was concerned. Therefore, on February 5 I put down a starred question regarding the same matter. Starred questions have to be answered orally. I realize it is going to be embarrassing if this answer is given, but I would point out to Your Honour that the contemptuous way in which questions are being answered, or answers withheld, constitutes an endeavour on the part of the government to place a blindfold on parliament. I shall not deal with that matter at the moment, but I think I should say to you, Mr. Speaker, as custodian of our rights in the House of Commons, that this hiding of the facts, the delays in answering that are taking place, indicate that the government has complete contempt for the right of members to secure information. This is a matter which I may bring to your direct attention shortly. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand? Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of a statement of the Minister of Finance that public service employees had been represented at talks with union leaders aimed at reaching some kind of consensus to restrain inflation. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour who has, I understand, been participating in these talks, whether the government has outlined to the unions, particularly, in this case, the public sector, any specific guideline respecting incomes, wages or salaries which the government feels would be suitable and appropriate in present conditions. Not in the discussions in which I was present. A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises from the statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House on January 28. I quote: From my point of view the addition of a COLA clause makes a good deal of sense because it responds to the cost of living rather than anticipating rates of inflation, which hopefully will not be attained. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the endorsement of a COLA clause by the Minister of Finance is government policy, particularly with relation to public service contracts? As the Minister of Finance said in the statement which has just been quoted, there is something to be said for this. But, regrettably, there is more to be said than that. I would not look upon the statement of the Minister of Finance as being an endorsement at all. There is something to be said for cabinet solidarity. Anyone who has looked into the question of the best basis for the negotiation of labour contracts knows that this is a subject upon which there can be legitimate differences of view. The Minister of Finance was not endorsing this concept for universal application; he was saying there was something to be said for it, and there is. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I must say it is sad for a Leader of the Opposition to see a Minister of Finance undermined when he is operating under such difficult conditions as this. I take it that the Acting Prime Minister has rejected the statement of policy made by the Minister of Finance in the House on January 28. Mr. Speaker, these consultations are continuing. I do not think the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition would have the effect of expediting the process. I think it is highly desirable that a number of ministers should be involved and that the government itself, through the Prime Minister, should take the responsibility. When these consultations have reached the point where there is something useful to report regarding the explorations that have taken place, there will be a report to the House. A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that the Acting Prime Minister is refusing to give a date within which the government will report on this matter that was in the Speech from the Throne and which has been dragging along now for quite a number of months? I do not think it would be desirable to fix the date, Mr. Speaker. I think the most important point about these explorations is that we should try to reach a consensus among the people who are participating. If we fix a time by which we are supposed to report a consensus, it is my view that it would inhibit the process. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at this time. I have just had provided to me an answer to question No. 1,296. This is the first opportunity I have had to rise since being made aware of the reply to the question, and I understand this is the avenue I should follow. I raise this question because-- Order, please. I understand the hon. member is reserving his right to raise a question of privilege at the first available opportunity, but I wonder whether it would be agreeable to him to wait until the conclusion of the question period before raising his question of privilege. I understand his concern that if he waited until the end of the question period it might be asserted that he had not raised it at the first available opportunity. That would be satisfactory to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and arises out of the obvious split between the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Finance respecting COLA clauses as they apply to the public service. In view of this difference of view, is the government contemplating any across the board incomes guidelines or a program that would be flexible regarding lower paid groups in the economy that have fallen significantly behind? I have in mind particularly the GLT group. Does the matter of comparability of wages for this group and similar workers in the private sector fit within the terms of reference of the government's objectives on a consensus? Mr. Speaker, in the public service we try to reach agreement with unions through negotiations. Our objective is to provide civil servants with salaries comparable to those received by people carrying out similar duties in the private sector. I think that with such a policy it is possible to achieve the government's objectives. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are still negotiating with the union. The parties met over the weekend and this morning, and they are talking. The mediator, Mr. O'Connor, is working with the parties and I hope he will find a solution that will be acceptable to both of the parties. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Mr. Speaker, we had a very good meeting this morning with representatives of the automobile workers. Theirs was a lengthy, comprehensive submission dealing positively with many of the issues before us. My colleagues and I will be giving very careful consideration to it. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been present this morning, he would have known that my colleagues and I took note of a number of these submissions made by the automobile workers. We will be advising him in due course of the government's decision. A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I can only hope that there are still some workers employed by the time the government gets around to announcing its decision. I should like to ask him about one area of price differential in which the minister has shown remarkable insight by saying we sell 80 per cent of our cars to the United States, overwhelmingly due to the fact that the price is about $600 lower in the United States. Has the minister or the government reconsidered the price position with a view to bringing down the price to Canadian consumers as one means of increasing employment in the industry? Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would focus upon the main problem of the automobile industry in Canada, which is the failure of the United States market, he would realize that the particular solution he is proposing would not have the effect of bringing about a resurgence in the automobile industry of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Transport. There is now some discontent in northwest Quebec regarding Val-d'Or and Rouyn airports. Val-d'Or was previously a military airport, which is now within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, and Rouyn has a civilian airport. The minister is undoubtedly aware that officials of his department visited these two places many times. Can the minister say today whether Val-d'Or will keep all its present equipment and continue to provide the same services, and whether Rouyn will be adequately equipped, so that airlines can serve both airports for people who want to go to that region? Mr. Speaker, when the Department of National Defence decided not to keep that airport, we sent investigators to see how we could use it for civilian purposes, since it was already used for such purposes. We are trying to determine the best way to proceed. I cannot promise the hon. member there will be two airports, one in Rouyn and one in Noranda. I think the hon. member can easily use his car to go from one to the other but, in any case, it would be a good thing if one of them provided adequate service. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemenatry. Whether I want to take the plane or use my car does not concern the Department of Transport. For about twelve years, officers of that department have come to visit the region. They promise us the equipment for an airport in Rouyn, to make possible the landing at 70 miles from Val-d'Or. That is done between Ottawa and Montreal, and I think that Rouyn and Val-d'Or are as important as Ottawa. Is the minister prepared to give better services to Rouyn airport without taking any away from Val-d'Or? I can assure the hon. member for Témiscamingue that his representation will be taken into very serious consideration, and I hope he will be satisfied. Mr. Speaker, if I were to reveal in the House what my position is, there would be no point in having any negotiations. It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance and I get along very well. The Canadian automobile industry depends on U.S. consumers for about 80 per cent, or very close to it, of its production. Therefore, the sales tax proposal that the hon. member has put is, in my view, not an answer to the Canadian automobile industry. If indeed the sales tax reductions were to be applied, they might also have the effect of increasing the proportion of imports from third countries. What about the Canadian consumer? In view of the fact that we are talking about a sales tax on Canadian manufactured goods, not those imported into this country, and in view of the fact that the ten year old auto pact called for an equalization of price in respect of motor vehicles produced on the north American continent, can the minister tell us now what the government is doing right now in respect of the troubled Canadian auto industry? Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, it has been decided by the government that the Veterans Land Act would not be extended any further. As I have mentioned on previous occasions, a study has been conducted by my department, by the department of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, by the Department of Finance, and others. When the findings are known to us which I hope will be very soon, I will make them available to the House of Commons. The minister did not answer my particular point, that is whether, if the new veterans housing legislation is not ready by March 31, 1975, the minister would consider extending the act for two or three months until that legislation is ready. This is a government decision which will be taken at the time, and whether the decision is favourable or unfavourable, the announcement will be made. My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Because of the fact that so many different sectors of the economy are being affected by the present GLT group walkouts, could the minister advise the House whether or not he would now perhaps consider looking into the possibility of having single public sectors in the economy dealing with the government as a whole in order to avoid the fragmentation of union power which, for example, has made this specific walkout so widespread? Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with that question because I do not know whether there would be less disruption if all the people were in the same union. If there were to be a strike, it would be a hell of a big strike. I do not think this would serve any useful purpose. Last week when the question was put to me twice I said that a joint committee of the House and of the Senate is looking into the recommendations of the Finkelman report and the hon. member will be welcome to express his views. The President of the Treasury Board did not understand my question in which I referred to the individual public sectors, not the whole economy. However, my supplementary question to the Minister of Labour is as follows. In view of the present work stoppage by the GLT group, could the minister advise this House whether his suggestion made to cabinet in a recent memorandum regarding labour relations in Canada will be implemented, and whether consideration is being given by cabinet to establishing a Canada labour relations council for the purpose of finding, on a continuing basis, solutions to different problems of practice and perception in labour relations, including the problems of fragmentation in the union? Mr. Speaker, I am not free to discuss here policies with respect to labour or any other policies discussed in cabinet. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It deals with the report of the York County grand jury recommending that Canadian forces personnel be used to clean up the unholy mess in Rochdale College in Toronto. I would like to ask the minister what action the government has taken or will take regarding this problem which has been existing for four years. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably knows that this is in the hands of the court. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the wheels of justice grind slowly. Like the cabinet. We would like to see this turned over for more beneficial use of the community, and I assure those concerned that while we are going through a legal process, I am keeping close to it. We will do all we can to co-operate and see that the best use of the accommodation available is made if this property returns to CMHC'S hands. I agree that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they must need a little grease by now. Why can the minister's department not put this building to some better use so that the citizens of Canada, especially the senior citizens, may receive some value for their tax dollars? I ask him to look into this. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of constant concern. I would like to see this returned to beneficial use for senior citizens or some other use which may be decided upon. I cannot do anything until the courts have made their determination. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Since people from Toronto and the area are still reluctant about the Pickering airport project, would the minister consider transferring part of the funds earmarked for this airport to make the urgent improvements needed at the Îles-de-la-Madeleine's airport and build an airport at Bonaventure? Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the minister was rising to answer my question and I would like to hear what he has to say. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if repairs are needed they should be made at the airports referred to, without necessarily using the funds earmarked for other purposes. Mr. Speaker, may I now direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government at the instigation of the Minister of Finance decided to cut back or slow down the social security program which the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced in this House on April 18, 1973? Can he specifically now tell us what the target date is for the introduction of a guaranteed annual income? Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity to meet my provincial counterparts tomorrow and the day after tomorrow on the occasion of a federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers. As for security of income, I think that when my hon. friend reads the proposal the government wish to make to the provinces on this occasion, he will find that the proposals we make are well within the limits indicated in the working paper tabled in this House in April 1973. Mr. Speaker, will the minister make a statement on this matter to the House immediately following that conference? I will certainly make sure that any statement I will make at the conference will be available immediately to all members of the House. As to whether it will be necessary to make a formal statement to the House at the end of the conference, I would like to give consideration to it later on. Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I would also ask the President of the Treasury Board to give it very special attention. Owing to the considerable increase in unemployment in areas where textile and lumber industries are set up, as in the Bellechasse constituency where the people are quite concerned, may I ask the minister whether additional estimates will be earmarked for the Local Initiatives Program, so that priority projects will be subsidized thus creating jobs to compensate for dismissals in those industries and will he suggest that the date for the beginning of works be deferred from January 31, 1975 to March 31, 1975? Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to and discuss the hon. member's representations with my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I asked the Minister of Finance this question, and in his absence today I will repeat it for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the obvious revision of the financial resources available to the government and to the economy, would the minister advise the House as to the revised figure he has arrived at respecting the cash requirements of the government for unemployment insurance payments in the fiscal year 1975, in light of the government's obligations? Will this figure possibly exceed the $2 billion reached in 1972? Mr. Speaker, I think, as the Minister of Finance indicated, there are a great number of variables which go into such forecasts. He said he would look into it. Yes, I am sure he will, and we are constantly looking at the variables to see the range. I would say that it is quite possible that the benefit pay-out in 1975 would be larger than the benefit pay-out in 1974, but to what extent I cannot tell you yet. In view of the fact that the estimates are going to be tabled on Wednesday next, surely the minister already knows whether the figure of cash requirements for the government with regard to its responsibilities under the unemployment insurance scheme will exceed $2 billion. Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Finance has been a party to these calculations. When the estimates are tabled I am sure the hon. member will be able to explore with us what the consequences and results might be. Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Given the precarious situation of the 37 Colombian weavers of Louiseville who have obtained some support from Quebec, does the minister intend to grant them an immigration visa? Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the first part of the question. I presume it relates to the Colombian workers who were brought in to work in the textile industry. As the hon. member knows, we have extended their permission to be here and we are looking at all possible means to alleviate a situation which arose, perhaps, inadvertently. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Mr. Speaker, we are constantly monitoring all our main post offices including that in Montreal, and the performance in the Montreal post office leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, there are officials there today making certain that our supervisors in the Montreal area have the required authority to prevent such action from being taken. A supplementary question. In view of the statement of the Postmaster General that a small number of troublemakers are out to destroy the whole system, would he report to the House on this matter in order to restore the good name of the majority of postal workers and also to avoid further more serious disruptions of this kind? Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that right now the majority of postal workers are entitled to a good name. They are law abiding citizens who do excellent work and provide the third best postal system in the world. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the group I am talking about is not confined to Montreal; it is found in other areas as well. The ideological conflict will be sorted out in due time. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since Canada's five regional airlines have stated that an urgent review of regional air policy is very necessary to them especially since they contend, and rightly so, that they are operating within the framework of the 1966 policy, I should like to ask the minister in view of the fact that his department has had some discussions with the regional air carriers about this program in the past two months, if he can inform the House what steps will be taken to upgrade regional air policies? Can the minister also inform the House whether a policy statement will be forthcoming in regard to what the Department of Transport intends to do in connection with regional carriers? Mr. Speaker, the policy which I hope can be announced shortly will cover not only the regional air carriers but it will cover the third level air carriers, it will cover the boards, it will cover the airports, the railways, the highways -- it will cover everything that moves in Canada. It won't cover the government, then. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent crisis in the beef industry that is causing farmers to sell livestock at almost half the cost of production, I should like to ask the minister what steps the government is taking at this time to alleviate the situation? Mr. Speaker, we have programs for our livestock producers that no other nation in the world has and we can provide stability for their production. We have, for top grade cattle, a support price of $45.42 per hundredweight. We are reviewing our indexing system for the price we set last August for one year and have announced that this cattle support program will be extended for another year from August, 1975. The provinces also have programs. There is no way we can tell people not to sell their cattle, but I think they would be better off not to sell at this time. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The minister is aware of the discrepancy that exists between the National Harbours Board and the commission ports and he knows the difficulties for those areas where commission ports are built. Could the minister inform the House as to the disposition of the Scott report and tell the House whether it contains policy regarding grants in lieu of taxes to local governments where such commission ports are in operation? Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to give a clear answer on this and I am sure you can understand why. We have a very difficult situation here -- it is easy to make a joke of what I am saying but the problem is the following: we have 13 ports under the National Harbours Board jurisdiction; we have the same number of harbour commissions and we have from 15 to 2,000 ports-- You have one hell of a mess. --which depend on the marine administration of my own department. Then, we have ports with special status like those in Toronto and Hamilton and private ports like Seven Islands and Port Cartier among others. The situation differs from place to place. If you ask me whether the National Harbours Board has a general policy for all those ports the answer is no, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which relates to the very serious situation in the automotive industry today. Since almost half the people employed in the automobile industry are employed in the parts sector and since this sector is particularly badly hit at this time, can the minister tell the House specifically what the government is planning to do to alleviate this critical situation? Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to assist them to find new export markets. We have participated with them in a number of trade missions abroad and Canadian fairs abroad. There have been various delegations from other countries to Canada looking at Canadian parts manufacturing as a source of supply. We are trying to find as many new and varied markets as we can. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I would direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the subject also concerns the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. On March 25, 1974 I mentioned the fact that 75 per cent of all family maintenance orders made by Canadian Family Courts against deserting husbands are in default. These defaults cost the Canadian taxpayer $365 million annually. In answer to my question during the adjournment debate the parliamentary secretary stated that this problem could be explored through the conference of uniformity commissioners on legislation which meets annually to examine ways and means of achieving uniformity in laws throughout the various jurisdictions. Can the minister now report to the House on the annual meeting and state what action is being taken to rectify this situation which has cost Canadian taxpayers close to $1 billion since January 1, 1973. Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to refer the hon. member's question to the Minister of Justice on his return to the House and the minister will then report. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the continuing hearings being held by the environmental authorities in the State of Maine regarding the construction of an oil refinery at Eastport, Maine, and in view of the position taken by the Minister of the Environment on April 29, can the minister inform the House whether a message has been sent to the Secretary of State of the United States to indicate what use may be made of Canadian waters for the delivery of oil to the proposed refinery? Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has stated the application is presently before the board in Maine and to my knowledge no decision has been rendered. If the oil for use in the proposed refinery is to be carried through the Head Harbour passage, of course, the attitude of the government of Canada has been made clear to the government of the United States. We think that the hazard to the environment is so great that this would be a very unwise course of action. Order, please. Orders of the day. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North on a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to a matter raised earlier by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that was brought to my attention in answer to question No. 1296 today. If you will examine question No. 1296 you will see that I asked very specifically for details in relation to gifts exchanged between members of our government and members of foreign governments when our government members are visiting foreign countries or members of other governments are visiting this country. In my question I sought to determine a number of things. I wanted to know, mainly, what moneys the taxpayers of Canada were putting up for gifts to foreign dignitaries. I was referring to gifts which such dignitaries receive in this country and to gifts which members of our government give to them when visiting other countries. As well, I wanted to know what happened to gifts received by representatives of our government. The answer I received was pure gobbledegook. It says nothing except that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), who signed the order, states that there is no policy with respect to exchanging gifts. That, Mr. Speaker, is obvious. I submit that members of parliament are entitled to such information as I seek. The money for gifts given by our government members does not come out of the pockets of cabinet ministers; it comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this nation. Yet this government refuses to supply me with the detailed information I seek about the expenditures of those tax dollars. This is not the first time this has happened. The government is making a mockery of a procedure which is useful in eliminating debate in this chamber. We submit questions to be placed on the order paper for a very good reason: if they were not on the order paper, the answers would take up valuable time in the question period which is already too short. For a long time I have endeavoured not to misuse the question period and, whenever possible, in my search for information I have submitted written questions. The response to such questions has been inadequate. For example, not long ago there was a request for information and details about people taking language courses on either a short or a long-term basis. I point out that such a person might be in Quebec or in France. Nevertheless, that is all the information which was supplied. If a question on the order paper is to be a useful tool for members of parliament, I suggest that you, sir, as our representative and spokesman should see to it that we are furnished with legitimate replies to our questions -- and this is happening less and less frequently. The kind of garbage I was given as an answer today is just not good enough. Something must be done or the entire system under which we work will break down. We are not being treated fairly. The government is secretive -- and it has no right to be secretive about how the taxpayers' dollars are spent. We want the facts. Having taken the time to formulate a question in detail, a question which is often based on research, we are entitled to an answer. The least we can expect is that the government will give us the information we seek. If we do not get it, the House will discover that every Monday and Wednesday at least half the day will ba taken up by members of the opposition legitimately rising and complaining about the government not giving them information to which they are entitled. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. It has become obvious that the government is hiding information, concealing facts and refusing to produce any information that is available. For example, let me refer to the question I asked on November 8 last, three months ago. I knew what the answer was when I asked the question; I received it from a departmental official. I wanted to know the total amount paid to sculptors for the statues of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and for the design proposal of the statue of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. The government hid that information for three months. I raised the matter recently and said there could be no excuse for this. But that is not the way to treat parliament. Today, according to the answer furnished, we learn that the sculptor, Marcel Braitstein of Sackville, New Brunswick, received $48,000 for the statue of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. Sir, that was the greatest monstrosity ever produced -- a mixture of Ichabod Crane and Daddy Longlegs. Not only did the government decide that it could not set up such an object on Parliament Hill; it refused to give an answer for three months. Then there was the monstrosity of a mock-up for the statue of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. It consisted of a mummy about three feet long, the identification of which might have been possible in the days of Tutankhamen, but not since. One, Elford Cox, of Willowdale, Ontario, was paid $2,800 for this. Why was this information withheld? I know the government cannot answer some questions immediately. On November 6 I asked how many convictions for rape have been registered over a period of years and how many kidnapping convictions have been registered. Although the question was asked three months ago, the government is still working on it. One would think, if they had any regard for the administration of justice, that the information would have been available long ago. But we are told all this takes a long time. Order, please. Some hon. members have already contributed to the alleged point of order or question of privilege relating to questions which have been placed on the order paper, answers to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) indicated would be given today. I accept the comments as being in the nature of a grievance. I think hon. members well know that the rules and Standing Orders of the House do not in any way compel the giving of answers by the government, no matter whether the question be an oral one put during the question period, a written question on the order paper or a question marked with an asterisk, that is, a starred question. I am commenting now only on whether a question of privilege has been established and whether, in the final analysis, the Chair has any authority to compel answers. I am sure hon. members know full-well that there is no compulsion under the Standing Orders and therefore no authority vested in the Chair to compel, in any way, the government to give answers. The government's choice as to whether to give answers is its own. Comments which have been made may be legitimate about the performance and discharge of that responsibility on the part of the government, but the Standing Orders stop short of providing the Chair with power of compulsion. I want hon. members to understand this clearly. The regulations and practices of this House stop far short of vesting authority in the Chair to compel any answers or to put any time limit on the giving of answers. If it is the feeling of hon. members that that should be done, that the Standing Orders of this House should be changed in such a way as to provide for compulsion, then so be it. Order, please. If the hon. member has a different question of privilege, I will be glad to hear it. Mr. Speaker, I tried to rise earlier with regard to the matter of gifts which was raised a moment ago. I feel I have a legitimate question of privilege in this regard. Some weeks ago an announcement was made by the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in keeping with the increased tendency toward the governing of Canada by the Prime Minister's office, that guidelines were being drawn up to set forth conflicts of interest with regard to gifts received by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet and their wives. As yet, these guidelines have not been presented to this House. All we have been presented with are answers like the one given today to the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), which answer is ridiculous and flaunts the privileges of every member of this House. Orders of the day. I hope he will be here later to participate in this debate. Let me say at the outset that although my motion calls for concurrence in the committee's report, the reason I am putting forward the motion is to get the report before the House. The special committee was set up on October 17 last with specific terms of reference. It was, first, to examine the operations of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and, second, the performance of the several authorities having responsibility with respect to those operations. There was no quarrel with the terms of reference. They were sufficiently wide in scope to give the committee the latitude it needed to embark upon this very important inquiry. Where we did, and do quarrel is with respect to the very narrow time-frame placed upon the committee by the government. The committee was instructed to report back to the House on or before December 16, 1974. This meant we had less than two months in which to conduct our inquiry. I ask hon. members to imagine a judicial inquiry or a royal commission inquiry being asked to embark upon an investigation of this magnitude and being told to hear the evidence, draft a report and present it to the government within two months. No judge or any other public-minded person in Canada would be party to such an inquiry. Yet that was precisely the position in which the special committee found itself. During the 24 days of the committee's public sittings we heard 73 witnesses and we received 173 briefs. As far as the briefs were concerned, it was up to the members of the committee to examine them in the best way they could within the very narrow time limits imposed by the order of reference. I think it is generally agreed that the members of the committee worked hard. In fact, this was one of the hardest working committees on which I have served. I can also say -- and I am sorry the hon. member is not in the House -- that the committee was presided over by a very fair, impartial and competent chairman. I refer, of course, to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox). Hear, hear! Suffice it to say that the report contains many very worth-while recommendations. Many of the findings and recommendations in the report are the direct result of our interest; however, it is our opinion that the committee failed on two important grounds. It makes a rather faint-hearted attempt in the report to absolve the Minister of Agriculture of any blame whatsoever regarding the discussion of the 28 million eggs. I quote as follows from page 16 of the report: The committee recognizes that the Minister of Agriculture does not have any direct control over the operation of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. We intend to show during this debate that not only was the minister responsible, but that a lot of the problems plaguing the agency today are a direct result of the failure of the minister to take an active interest in the first year of the agency's operation, especially since it was supposed to be a pilot for other national marketing agencies to be established under the national Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. Second, we cannot be a party to the committee's report because in our view the committee did not have an opportunity to hear all the facts pertaining to the operations of CEMA and the destruction of surplus eggs because of the time-frame imposed upon the committee by its order of reference. The committee had less than two months to call witnesses, examine the evidence and prepare a report for the House. The Minister of Agriculture said, during the debate setting up the committee -- and I quote from page 490 of Hansard : Let the nation get all the facts which it has not received to this date. We did not get all the facts. Let me give the House three illustrations of what I mean. First, the committee never had an opportunity to examine the management committee of CEMA, that is to say, the committee which is in charge of the day to day operations of the agency. How can one properly carry out the terms of reference of the committee without examining the body which is most closely involved? Furthermore, after the committee had concluded its public hearings and had commenced its sessions in camera to draft its report, a letter was circulated to all committee members by CEMA'S auditors, Touche, Ross and Company, indicating that the auditors could not issue an audit of the agency's financial accounts which would be in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles, and here I am paraphrasing. I might say that this evidence was produced as a result of a question directed to the auditors by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). In a letter to CEMA dated October 24, 1974, the auditors stated that the inventory records of the agency were inaccurate and not up to date at the time of the auditors' examination. The letter also contained this startling revelation: There were several locations where eggs were stored and could not be examined by us because the locations were not known to us or to the agency at the date of the examination. That evidence was crucial to the committee's investigations. Obviously, the implication here was that there could have been considerably more than 28 million eggs destroyed. So the number destroyed may have been 30 million, 40 million, or more. It might have been as high as 100 million. On October 5, 1974, the last day of the committee's public hearings, the provincial ministers of agriculture, following meetings in Ottawa with the federal minister on the future of CEMA, issued a statement containing a number of recommendaitons the effect of which was to place CEMA under trusteeship for two years. This report did not come before the committee until the final day of public hearings, when there were no further opportunities open to us to examine witnesses or to hear new evidence. The key recommendations in the ministers' report are as follows: 1. For an initial period of two years, CEMA should consist of a two-part administration: (A) CEMA proper, to consist of ten provincial representatives, plus (B) a five-member executive committee. 2. The provincial representatives should be selected by the commodity egg board in each province and should be acceptable to the other signatories to the plan in each respective province. 3. This report was not presented to the committee for examination. We are entitled to know what position the Minister of Agriculture for Canada took in respect of those recommendations. As I say, this report came at the end of the committee's hearings and we had no opportunity to obtain this information. Whether the recommendations are good or bad is irrelevant at this point. The point is, they represent a complete reversal of attitude toward CEMA. For example, when the publicity about CEMA in connection with the destruction of eggs had just begun, there were complaints that consumer representation on CEMA was inadequate. It was not suggested at any time that producers should not have any say in the conduct of their own marketing boards. But that is the attitude taken by most of the provincial ministers. It is up to the minister to decide whether to implement these measures or not. We hope the Minister of Agriculture, who is not in the House at this moment, will address himself to this question before the debate concludes. The evidence to which I have referred, coming, as I say, at the end of the committee's hearings, totally discredits, in my view, the report which is now before the House. That is why my hon. friend for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) will be moving an amendment later this day to refer the report to the Standing Committee on Agriculture where members would have the opportunity to learn all the facts -- not just selected facts, not just the facts the minister wants us to hear. There will also be an opportunity to look into the new facts which have come to light since the committee made its report. I should like to review briefly the events which have taken place since the committee presented its report. In December there was an announcement that British Columbia would be withdrawing from CEMA. British Columbia is one of the important producer provinces. Then on January 29 of this year Newfoundland announced that it would be withdrawing from CEMA. We are told that other provinces are about to make a similar move. Why are those two provinces withdrawing? Surely the House is entitled to an answer to that question before it comments on this report. It is becoming increasingly obvious that we no longer have a national egg marketing plan. Indeed, it is questionable whether such a plan ever existed. Evidence was presented to the committee, from several provinces, to the effect that barriers to interprovincial trade in eggs still exist even after a full year of operations by the agency. And, of course, the principal reason for bringing CEMA into existence was to end the so-called chicken and egg war; to bring down provincial barriers to trade. For example, Nova Scotia eggs could not get to Newfoundland, and British Columbia closed its border to eggs from Alberta and other provinces. The committee hears evidence to the effect that CEMA had set its intervention price, that is, the price which would be paid for surplus eggs, so high that it was, and perhaps still is, an incentive to over-produce. As a result, production in Canada is still out of control and CEMA is unable, or at least it was unable up to the end of January, to control the supply of eggs. Here I refer hon. members to the story that broke in the Globe and Mail on January 15 last. Shortly after that story appeared, CEMA announced at its meeting in Moncton that it would be reducing production by 10 per cent. What about the present surplus production? Is it now rotting in storage? We are told it has been disposed of. How was it disposed of? Even the Minister of Agriculture was skeptical of that statement when he first heard it. Fourthly, there can be no supply-management concept unless and until there is co-ordination between domestic production and the importation of eggs into this country. We said the following in our own submission: The Minister of Agriculture has failed to recognize a crucial feature of the supply-management concept in that his own government failed to implement an effective mechanism of import controls which directly resulted in lack of stability to the producer and still subjects the consumer to fluctuating prices. The result, of course, is apparent every day. I am sorry that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is not in the House. He did make one of his rather infrequent visits to the House today, but I am sorry that he has been unable to stay for this debate. Hopefully, the minister will participate in the debate since he does have direct responsibility in this matter. The Consumers Association of Canada has described CEMA as a mismanaged monopoly. Enjoying as it does the special privileges that it has respecting the combines act, unless and until this particular agency has consumer representation it lends itself to that kind of charge. At the beginning of the present session the Minister of Agriculture promised the following, if I may quote from his speech on October 3 as reported at page 92 of Hansard : Shortly we will be announcing some new appointments to the National Farm Products Marketing Countil. These will include a consumer representative, a labour-oriented representative, and a businessman. Where are these appointments? They were promised the House last October. Under the statute, the Fram Products Marketing Council has direct supervisory responsibility and is accountable to the minister, which of course makes the minister responsible for the day to day operations of CEMA. We were promised consumer representation on the council last October, so why has the government not seen fit to move on its promise? What about CEMA itself, if in fact it is able to survive and does survive? I believe -- many members share this view, including the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs -- that CEMA, because of its special position and the special privileges it enjoys, and also because the provisions of the combines act are waived, should have consumer representation on its board. I hope that from this point of view alone we will have some comment from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Indeed, one would have expected the minister to be the champion of cause of consumers if for no other reason than it is in keeping with his responsibility under the statute under which his department was set up. But the reverse seems to be true. It is interesting to read what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had to say when he appeared before the committee. I quote from issue No. 10 of the committee's proceedings. I am not advocating a consumer representative; I am advocating a federal representative and, therefore, if anybody has to put money in it will not be my department, it will be the federal government. That is the kind of gobbledegook that we got from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during his brief appearance before the committee. But if one thing rings true loud and clear, it is the statement that the minister is not in favour of consumer representation on the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, or that indeed he does not support the principle of consumer representation on national marketing boards. While talking about consumer representation on national marketing boards, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should tell the House what he proposes to do about, for example, the recommendations contained in the Forbes report on consumer interest in marketing boards. The Forbes report was not undertaken as an academic exercise. This is a report that was commissioned by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which has been in the hands of the minister and his department since last April. From what I have read of the minister's appearance before the committee, he has obviously ignored Professor Forbes' recommendations, just as he has ignored the recommendations of the Consumers Association of Canada. I regret this very much because for a while the minister was showing some promise. I certainly hope we will hear from him in this debate. Professor Forbes' report, which I commend to all hon. members of the House, contains some interesting reading. He has described our agricultural policy as "confused" and as a "hodgepodge" which is costing the Canadian taxpayer, to paraphrase him, over $1 billion a year. We certainly have a good example of this confusion before the House at the moment. We are told that the broiler chicken industry in Canada is in a mess. I mention that fact because the government has once again made no response whatever to the recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board report which was released on January 13. In that report the board recommended that the federal government "not proceed with the establishment of a national chicken marketing agency until a number of questions arising from the board's findings are resolved". As an extra plank in its program to end the chicken and egg war, the government put into place plans to set up a national broiler chicken marketing agency. In its report on January 13, which is in the hands of all hon. members, the board sets out very good reasons for taking this view, reasons that I think are very germane to this debate. For example, the board found that producer price increases in the chicken broiler industry and the wholesale price spreads do not appear to justify either the increase in average retail prices in the past year or the differences in retial price spreads among the provinces. The board goes on to question whether these differences in fact reflect regional differences in input costs. On checking today, I was told that there are 34 million pounds of broiler chicken in cold storage. At the time the report was filed, there were 31 million pounds of broiler chicken in cold storage as of last September. The board finds that the Canadian Broiler Council's proposal for a national chicken marketing plan under the National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act-- --features a narrow definition of the interests to be served in a national marketing plan and it does not resolve the problem of provincial versus federal jurisdiction which seriously impeded the effective working of the national egg marketing plan. Therein the board underlined the most serious weakness of the national egg marketing plan, and that is the problem of jurisdiction, the problem of the constitution and the fact that CFMA consists of ten provincial marketing agencies which have full jurisdiction under the constitution. Unless these provincial marketing agencies are prepared to discipline themselves and to adhere rigidly to the agreed upon quotas, there can be no national marketing plan. That is precisely what has happened and that is why today there is no national marketing plan. It should be remembered -- I think this is worth pointing out for the record -- that it was the Food Prices Review Board that touched off the egg controversy in the first instance. It made a similar report on eggs back in January of last year. One would think the minister would have learned a lesson, but it is obvious that some people never learn. Perhaps the minister, if he graces us with his presence today, will tell us what he proposes to do about the findings of the board on the broiler chicken industry. Otherwise, he should tell Mrs. Plumptre and her people to go home and stop wasting the taxpayer's money if these reports are to be ignored, as they are from time to time. On the basis of the evidence we have, the Minister of Agriculture was warned as far back as December, 1973 -- and that evidence was presented very clearly to the committee in a memorandum which was presented by the Farm Products Marketing Council -- that egg surpluses were getting out of control and would continue to get out of control. The minister's failure to act on the report of the council at that time, his subsequent behaviour with regard to the report of the Food Prices Review Board and the publicity which attended the first revelation, can only be construed as an attempt to cover up this whole rotten affair -- an attempt which, I am pleased to say, failed. Let the minister now level with the House and with the country, because it is not CEMA that is on trial here but the whole concept of national commodity marketing agencies and the supply-management principle. Neither concept has been served well by this minister. At a time when Canadians are paying record high prices for food, and when there are rising farm input costs, we have a right to know if the minister intends to take steps to ensure that before any other national marketing plans are put in place the best interests of both producers and consumers will be protected. Furthermore, the minister has an obligation to tell us that these things will be done not just as another ad hoc program, as an ad hoc reaction to a continuing crisis situation, but in the context of a national food policy which was recommended to the government by the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices of late lamented memory, and that such a national food policy will not only honour our obligations and commitments to the people of Canada but our obligations and commitments to the people of the starving world. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) this afternoon because many things were done by the Department of Agriculture and in my opinion many good recommendations were made by him, but I do not know whether they were given any consideration either by the farm marketing board or by CEMA itself. Only the minister can give us that information because, due to special circumstances, this matter is not before the Standing Committee on Agriculture as it normally would be. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) say that later a member of the House will be moving an amendment recommending that this matter go before the committee on agriculture. I would certainly support such a motion. First, however, I would like to indicate two things. I believe that that is one of the matters that was dealt with very effectively by the committee, and I think the hon. member stood alone in his contention. Without doubt, marketing legislation does affect the consumer but it does not necessarily affect him in the way that the hon. member pointed out. Obviously it affects the consumer because a monopoly is being established, normally for the benefit of the people who are operating it -- in this case, the egg producers -- and who are deciding how many eggs should be produced, where they should be produced, and at what cost. The consumer is affected if the cost is too high. Conversely, it is true that the consumer will gain considerable benefit from orderly marketing if supplies are made available during a continuous period of time so that there are no shortfalls, at which time the price is exorbitantly high, and no surpluses when the consumer still buys a normal amount of the product and the remainder of the product depresses the market and the surrounding sectors affected by that market. If the price of eggs drops very low, other farming segments are affected, such as cattle, poultry, and so on, because this is a protein that can be used for various purposes. Mr. Speaker, whether the producer will learn nationally to control his produce to his advantage in order to ensure a reasonable price, and at the same time supply the market with a suitable product over a continuous period, will depend on whether the agency we now have will bring together the constitutional problem of provincial versus federal control. If it is able to master this, in my opinion it will be able to serve the needs of the consumer and probably facilitate the consumer having some input in respect of legislation in this area. For many months when the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act was before the committee on agriculture, I fought against it, not because I was opposed to the idea of orderly marketing but because I was opposed to the idea of the federal government establishing a piece of marketing legislation which it would not be able to control. It seems to me that what happened in respect of the egg marketing legislation was inevitable because we operated the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act for the first time in the development of a national agency that was dependent entirely upon provincial agencies. They opted, under the egg marketing legislation, to do just that. It is my opinion that this kind of marketing legislation will never operate satisfactorily. It will not operate satisfactorily because provinces will continually, in every agricultural field, be looking for self-sufficiency. If every province looks for self-sufficiency in every field, obviously there will be a surplus which no federal government will be able to handle. But I have heard no complaint from the provinces as to the operation of the federal government in the industrial milk field. To a lesser degree, because it affects a smaller number of people -- but certainly in a much larger field -- the federal government has successfully operated the Canadian Wheat Board which has a monopoly in three provinces and a monopoly, in a different way, in two other provinces. It has operated this monopoly on behalf of the producer over a long time and in my opinion has done so successfully. Any detriment which has occurred to the industry over the years, or to consumers, has been in my opinion due to meddling with that marketing agency and production: we have reduced its efficiency. I am convinced that federal marketing legislation is necessary. I am convinced that it is advantegeous. Whether we can get the co-operation of all the people who joined CEMA is very doubtful. The hon. member for St. John's East also complained about the fact that again there is building up a very large surplus of eggs, and if that surplus continues -- it was indicated early in January that we had 40 million and we were increasing that surplus by 15 million per week -- I think he has reason to worry. It is very interesting to note that his sidekick or mentor, Mr. Plumptre, does not take his position. She said on January 16, referring to this vast build-up, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail : Beryl Plumptre, chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, said in Ottawa yesterday there is no need for panic over the 40 million egg surplus. "That's not an excessive amount," Mrs. Plumptre said. She said the president of CEMA has a tough job ahead of him, "so for goodness sake let's give him a chance to get the situation under control." But two things which were involved at the same time really worry me. When asked about this matter, one of the officials of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency said they had had a large build-up of eggs -- they had 40 million plus the weekly increase of 15 million -- but that was last week and now it has all been taken care of. I am really concerned about that because I would like to know how it was taken care of and under what circumstances. How does one get rid of so many eggs, and under what circumstances? I am also concerned about another factor which is very important. Canada imported about 72 million eggs from the United States last year and, at the same time, exported 156 million, most of them to the U.S., an agriculture department spokesman said yesterday. This seemingly strange set of circumstances, expected to change this year because of declining American production, results mainly from price differences in the two countries. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that really confuses the Canadian public. The minister can say that we are exporting more eggs than we are importing. We imported 72 million and we exported 156 million. The eggs which we imported were table eggs: most of them went on the table in Ontario or in Quebec. But the eggs we exported were breaker eggs at about one-third the price of table eggs. So we are importing eggs for table use and we are exporting eggs for breaker use. It would be of great interest to me and to many other people to find out exactly how we got rid of the large number of eggs we had accumulated in January so that by the end of the month it could be said at the Moncton meeting that there was really no surplus and we were going to embark upon a reduction of the quota. At the same time, we have not been given any indication that quotas are being imposed on the importing of eggs. I agree with one thing the hon. member for St. John's East said, and that is that the time limit imposed on the committee worked to its detriment. I think the committee did an excellent job. It held 24 public meetings, received 20 briefs and hundreds of submissions, and in those meetings it looked very extensively at the whole problem not only of eggs but of marketing legislation in a federal system. It made a number of recommendations, and I think we have a right to know what happened to them. One criticism levelled at the Minister of Agriculture is, I think, unfair. I would be very opposed to a national marketing agency over which the minister would exercise the kind of control that is being suggested by some members. An agency should be able to stand on its own feet no matter who the minister is or what situation or emergency develops. So far this agency has not had to handle unexpected emergencies. Although it was in no position to take over that surplus, CEMA did take it over and finally eliminated it and now we are in the position where we only meet our requirements. One of the initial problems with CEMA was that it did not have people who were interested in establishing a national agency. Instead, it had people who were interested in being loaned from their own provincial sections to a national agency, to the advantage of the provincial agencies. That meant there was nobody looking after the over-all situation with a view to establishing a reasonable national quota. The people who were part of the agency did not have the time nor the expertise to embark upon a program to expand international sales. It is my view that a national agency composed of provincial people had very little opportunity to get off the ground. One of the committee's recommendations was that the size of CEMA should be increased by three members and hopefully one of these would become chairman. It was felt that people who were properly oriented would look at the over-all position. The committee felt that the government should immediately look into the question of importing and exporting eggs. Surely it would be better not to import them from the United States. If we allow unmarked table eggs to come in from the United States, they can be packed in boxes displaying Canadian companies' names without any indication that they are not Canadian eggs. In Ontario, a large number of eggs come directly from the United States and to my knowledge the government has not taken steps, under the orderly marketing operations which are a right under GATT, to have these eggs labelled as such. The committee made many suggestions about the bookkeeping of CEMA. The agency depended almost entirely on provincial boards for information on where and what surpluses there were. Sometimes the surpluses were counted twice, and sometimes storage places were missed. They wanted the provincial boards to follow the same set-up so that their audit would be acceptable to federal auditors. I should like to know, from someone on the government side, whether this has been done. If it has not, I should like to know why. It was also suggested that CEMA be helped to develop a method of disposing of surplus eggs to the needy in Canada. The board indicated that they had investigated this matter, had not found a way to do so advantageously and had therefore temporarily set the idea aside. The committee also recommended that eggs should be in storage for a limited length of time and should only be kept there to meet the needs of Canadians. The committee agreed that some storage eggs could be marked as such and put on the market at a reduced price. It was suggested that eggs were sometimes held in storage longer than they should be because the board was in negotiation with the breaker trade. The report said clearly that if the eggs could not be sold for a reasonable price, CEMA could order them to be broken and converted to powder and then dispose of the egg powder as part of our food aid program to underdeveloped countries. The federal government was to pay for this conversion to powder. This course was better than holding the eggs in storage when there was no likelihood of their being used as fresh table eggs. The committee was told that eggs could be stored for eight months and still be certified by the Department of Agriculture as fit for human consumption. Obviously, if the eggs are to be broken in any event, there is no point in storing them for a long period. Why not break them right away? I think that was the committee's view. Many eggs that we eat today have been stored, not by CEMA but by the supermarket chains. If eggs were to be marketed within seven days of being laid, there would be no spoilage and housewives would not complain. The other day the Minister of Agriculture said that unless CEMA functions more adequately, he will disband the organization. Farm marketing legislation gives him the right to abolish the agency. Experts appearing before the committee were opposed to marketing legislation, but they agreed that in the final analysis marketing legislation was beneficial. They did not support a national egg marketing agency. It was pointed out that bringing together the 33 people involved in CEMA was a major undertaking. However, unless the agency can work satisfactorily, its policies will again lead to disaster and the alternative will be one national marketing agency which will control all egg production in this country, in the same way as one board controls industrial milk. Although this course may simplify administration, it will not have the support of most ministers of agriculture in this country. I hope the minister will tell the House which recommendations of the board he has put into effect. Personally, I think the committee did a good job and the government should heed its recommendations, as well as recommendations made by the ministers of agriculture who met late in November. Everyone agreed that if the agency could be made to work properly, producers would benefit, as would consumers who would have available high quality eggs at stable prices. Mr. Speaker, before commenting on what other hon. members have said, I would speak about the situation which existed a few years ago in the egg industry. The industry experienced ups and downs; prices to consumers fluctuated and returns to producers fluctuated. The result was that many producers went out of business, and when high profits were to be made, the few who remained in business made them. In our society the farmer is not organized, nor is he part of a pressure group. He does not belong to an association of the kind to which doctors, lawyers and other professional people belong; that is, to an association which will safeguard his job and in some cases guarantee his income. Safeguards are necessary if people are to buy expensive equipment. THe farmer buys land as well as equipment. Members of occupational associations do not worry so much about booms or busts which have been traditional in agriculture. The farmer is alone, open to the elements and to the caprices of markets in which he is forced to sell. I do not think anyone in this House suggests that the farmer's position is enviable. If he is successful he may find, on going to market, that other farmers have been successful as well; and plenty in the marketplace means a low price to the farmer but, of course, a beneficial price to the consumer. I suppose many farmers and others in Canada have looked into this situation. I am proud to say that British Columbia was among the first provinces to consider the establishment of marketing boards. It is unfortunate that after our first experiment in establishing a national marketing agency so many eggs were destroyed because of mismanagement by the board. I do not think the farmer, the egg producer or the poultry producer was happy to see 28 million eggs destroyed. The consumer was not happy, either. When something like this happens, we all lose. You must realize, Mr. Speaker, that there was a genuine desire for order in an industry which had experienced ups and downs, booms and busts and havoc for many years. You must become professional. I have no idea whether the egg marketing concept will still exist in one or two years from now. However, if it fails, it will be a sorry day for both the consumer and the farmer. I have two views on this. I realize there was incompetence; there were managers who did not manage and producers who overproduced or tried to hide what they had produced. As a result, it is not just one man or one government that is at fault in this matter. I believe it results from a combination of all parts of the marketing scheme. If we are going to lay blame, let us put that blame on all sectors; let us not look for one man as a scapegoat. Oh, oh! I hear some members of the opposition laughing. We have one Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but we have many members. Don't blame the Prime Minister, the leader. The buck has to stop somewhere. Don't blame the general of the army if a battle is lost, because a general is only one man. This question involves many other people. I hear comments from the other side. I am glad they are awake. We are, but it's a real effort. There were many parts of an organization, not just one or two. There is no use blaming the chairman of CEMA, the marketing board, the Premier of British Columbia or the Premier of Newfoundland. It is not fair to go after the jugular vein of one man in this House, because he was not the only man involved. I do not believe, in the short time we had to make this report, that that is the evidence that turned up. Members of the committee will recall that we sometimes met two or three times a day: it was a very busy schedule. However, when I look at the number of witnesses who appeared -- in most cases to the satisfaction of the committee -- I believe we heard from as many people as required to make a decision and recommendations on this matter. The following organizations submitted briefs to the committee: the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the Committee to Reform Egg Marketing in Ontario, and the Egg Producers' Association of Quebec. It was stated that we required more time. All I can say is that we certainly hit all bases as far as representatives from the poultry industry and consumers are concerned. The only thing that could perhaps be faulted is that we could not spend two or three hours or days with each witness. That would have been impossible. I do not think it is necessary to spend a great deal of time if you can question the witnesses and sift through the information to the satisfaction of the committee. I do not believe we required any further witnesses. There was reference to the fact that the CEMA auditors, Touche, Ross and Company indicated as follows in their report on the agency's financial statements ending June 30, 1974: Because of our inability to verify egg production levies, the cost of egg surplus removal program and the inventory, and because of the uncertainties arising from the financial position of the agency, we do not express an opinion on the accompanying financial statements for six months ended June 30, 1974. That is a very harsh indictment of the CEMA board. The hon. member for St. John's East stated that these people should appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I submit that if we look at what was said, they do not know how many eggs were produced, they do not know what the levies were, they do not know the cost of the egg surplus removal program, and the inventory is uncertain. No matter how many committees they appear before, whether it be the agriculture committee or a committee on the commonwealth of nations, they will say the same thing -- that they do not know. There is no use bringing in these auditors because, according to the bookkeeping system of CEMA, they cannot tell whether the agency produces eggs or walnuts. Even though that is a harsh indictment of CEMA by the accounting people, we are not discussing the faults of these people or what they did wrong. They made mistakes, obviously, otherwise we would not have had the committee. The point is, what further information could these people give us if they were called before the agriculture committee? However, they would say the same thing, namely, that the accounting procedures of CEMA make it impossible for them to know what is going on. In all humbleness, I suggest that the hon. member for St. John's East is incorrect in asking that these witnesses appear before a committee of any type, because the same story would come out. Even though they have an inefficient method of counting eggs produced in Canada, and in many cases do not know where they have put the eggs, both the committee and the House could have been saved a lot of trouble if someone had learned the simple fact that you sell the oldest produce first: you do not sell the freshest produce first. What happens is that the old eggs get older and eventually rot. It is a strange thing to see happen in our day and age. The loss of 28 million eggs amounts to an expensive lesson in the correct handling of eggs at a warehouse. I do not think we need expert witnesses before a committee of the House of Commons to tell us this. It is elementary. There is no need for accountants to tell us that they cannot make head or tail of the books. There is no need for provincial representatives to tell us that perhaps they were more interested in the effect on their own areas than in the national picture. All this is contained in testimony which the committee has already heard. We know about the pitfalls. We know where they went wrong. After hearing this evidence, the committee made its recommendations -- the recommendations contained in the report which is now before the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is no way in which the committee can instruct the minister or CEMA to implement these recommendations. That is something for the provinces to consider and for the minister to decide. One of the recommendations which I would strongly urge the minister to carry out, and one which appeals to me on humanitarian grounds, is that surplus eggs should in future be distributed in such a way that senior citizens and people in receipt of welfare funds might make use of them. One of the reasons a surplus of eggs arose was that the egg breakers in Ontario and eastern Canada are controlled to an estimated 70 per cent by one firm, and it was obviously to the advantage of this firm to be able to buy eggs at as low a price as possible, despite the fact that this was bound to create a problem for the egg marketing system which was trying to get a fair price for its product. Canadians, whether consumers or producers, feel strongly that we cannot afford to allow any food to be destroyed, either through greed or through neglect. Surely we cannot, in today's conditions, allow food which is so desperately needed throughout the world to go to waste here. I believe the CEMA people understand this responsibility and I hope the agony of the committee hearings, the several weeks we spent discussing this problem, made them aware of their shortcomings. Surely they are smart enough at this point not to go through the whole exercise again. Mention should be made of the special position of the Minister of Agriculture and his relationship to these events. The power given to the Minister of Agriculture is clearly stated in the course of the background respecting ministerial responsibility. On page 6 of issue No. 16 of the proceedings of the Special Committee on Egg Marketing, the following appears: The committee fully recognizes the principle of ministerial responsibility which is fundamental to the British parliamentary system and therefore effectively directs all of its observations and recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture for his consideration even though they have direct bearing on the operations of the National Farm Products Marketing Council, CEMA, provincial boards, provincial governments and other departments of the Government of Canada... The committee further recognizes that the Minister of Agriculture does not have any direct control over the operation of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. The agency has the obligation imposed upon it by parliament to report directly through the Farm Products Marketing Council. The Farm Products Marketing Council in turn has a responsibility and obligation to report to parliament through the Minister of Agriculture. The Farm Products Marketing Council Act passed by parliament does not envisage that the Minister of Agriculture directly would have responsibility for the day to day operations of the Farm Products Marketing Council. These responsibilities rest primarily on the shoulders of the management of the Farm Products Marketing Council itself. On page 16:7 of the same report evidence is given to the committee by the legal advisers to the National Farm Products Marketing Council that unilateral action on the part of the minister or the agency was not possible. Possibly this is a weakness in the system. However, I suppose that in some respects it is rather like confederation itself, where the ten provinces sometimes work together and sometimes do not. It is unfortunate that provincial boards do not at all times submit to the will of the national board, but I suppose it is only understandable that they should wish to protect the interests of their own areas. In any case, it would be foolish to suggest that the minister had it within his power to correct the situation which was developing, without reference to the other provinces and to the other boards. It would be a great disservice to the minister, who is recognized as one of the all-time champions of the farmers, to accuse him of failing to follow the progress of this agency as though he could throw out the life-saver which would rescue an extremely waterlogged board. When hon. members have perused all the evidence given before the committee, I hope they will feel, as I did, that there was a genuine and sincere attempt by many people, who before the committee met had had very little experience of eggs, egg marketing boards and farmers, to outline the faults that had been created and to bring in remedies and cures for those faults. However, to return this matter to the agricultural committee would, I think, be a waste of time both for the committee and for the House. Madam Speaker, the Special Committee on Egg Marketing, of which I am a member, received very special terms of reference, that is to inquire into the performance of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, established under the provisions of Bill C-176. The terms of reference of that body entailed very great responsibilities. That was evidenced by the seriousness all members displayed during all the proceedings which lasted several weeks. I wish to pay homage to all my colleagues on the committee for the responsible way in which they worked during the proceedings. They very objectively endeavoured to find out the weaknesses of this egg marketing program, put forth recommendations for its improvement and enable on the one hand, producers to get the income they deserve and, on the other hand, consumers to buy good quality eggs at prices they can afford. In my view, Madam Speaker, such was the objective to be set by the committee in order to serve the whole Canadian people. A number of sessions were held, many witnesses appeared, as was aptly mentioned by the hon. member that moved the motion to debate the committee's report dated December 16, 1974. It is my conclusion that members of the Canadian Egg Marketing Board either showed levity, or failed to realize the extent of their responsibilities. Under an act of Parliament, the Farm Product Marketing Council's responsibility was to establish, at the request of producers themselves, a marketing board, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. Newspaper reports appeared to the effect that eggs were let to spoil in various locations; FEDCO, the agency in the province of Quebec, was not adequately fulfilling its member's expectations, and in other areas such as British Columbia or even Ontario the orderly marketing of eggs fell somewhat short of expectations. The Food Prices Review Board, the so-called Plumptre Commission, entered into the picture, presumably at the request of consumers complaining they could not get fresh enough eggs, or at reasonable prices they could afford, or the eggs offered for sales were unmarked and they were in doubt whether they were buying Canadian eggs or eggs imported from some other country. The Plumptre Board made a few reports, made checks on the spot, determined that there were irregularities in this area, that there was something wrong, and it submitted its report. Every member of the special committee responsible for studying this problem was able to see certain recommendations that the reports of this board contain. Madam Speaker, even after all this, the issue was raised in Parliament, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was faced with an extremely serious problem, namely that there was something wrong. A motion was then presented in Parliament asking that a special committee be instructed to examine all aspects of this problem and to report to the House by a predetermined date, that is by December 16, 1974. As concerns the Food Prices Review Board which I mentioned a moment ago, I would like to say that I have examined carefully the research that has been made and the exact complaints made by consumers which justified the need for a report by the board. After all that reading I came to the conclusion that the Farm Products Marketing Act in Canada with which we first experienced in the area of eggs did not give results that were really encouraging. So, to avoid such spectacular results in other areas, discouragement and the dropping of that legislation, something just had to be done. I remember quite well, Madam Speaker, that when CEMA was established following the passage of Bill C-176 representations were made that that agency included only producers, people interested in the area of production, and they had neglected for reasons I ignore to appoint representatives from the consumer side as well when the minister under that act had the power to appoint two or three members on that agency as consumer representatives. Even if there had been two members from the consumer side, would we really have had better results? That is a question that may be asked. Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock. 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 York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-- Finance-- Amount of tax liability reduction in 1975 due to indexing; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-- Canadian National Railways-- Company's intentions respecting escalation of pensions of persons already retired; the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek)-- Public Service-- Proposal government deal with unions representing single sectors of economy-- Government position on establishing labour relations council. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills. Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North) moved: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter this debate today to discuss a matter that could not be more appropriate at this time than the development of alternate sources of energy which would materially assist in the overcoming of the anticipated shortfalls in energy which may face the Atlantic area of Canada. I am pleased indeed to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) is in the House, for he has indicated in past debates on this matter that all the support for an undertaking of this type does not come only from Atlantic Canada but that even Ontario is willing to join us in endeavouring to undertake the development of what might be considered a rather visionary type of new energy source that would be of value and benefit to the nation as a whole. Let me say, first of all, that it is hard to find today a type of development in the field of energy resources that would produce power that is both pollution free and inflation free. Yet that is exactly the situation that exists in so far as tidal power is concerned. We in Atlantic Canada are most fortunate in that while for some time in our history it appeared that there was no way of developing the resources we had that would be useful not only to our area but to the nation as a whole, it has been discovered that many of these possibilities are becoming probabilities and some of them are very close to becoming realities. It pleased me greatly to learn that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) recently announced the development of further grid systems that will provides the means whereby power can be transferred from the Churchill River in Newfoundland to the province of Quebec as the result of improvements in the grid system in the area of Atlantic Canada, as well as the fact that initiatives will be taken to produce a cable that will go underwater between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to link Prince Edward Island to a grid system that will be part of our power program in the maritime provinces. It is also an indication that if we are to undertake something as substantial as the development of the Fundy tidal power, we will have not just a regional grid but a national grid. When our party was in office, initiatives were undertaken by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) to make such a national grid a reality. Perhaps one of the reasons the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance in the last debate that we had on this matter indicated a willingness to line up with Atlantic Canada in the efforts to secure this undertaking is that he could see that in the long run, because of the many problems with which Canada was concerned east of the Ottawa Valley regarding the securing of a ready and reliable power pool, it would be able to benefit from the undertaking which I anticipate will come much sooner than was originally expected. We have been together on many joint undertakings which we hoped would further the cause of this particular development. In December of 1974, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and I had the pleasure and opportunity of assisting Mr. Robert Monks, director of the department of energy and resources in the state of Maine, Mr. Stanley Tupper, former congressman, ambassador to Canada and counsellor for the state of Maine, Dr. Charles Berg, associated with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and Dr. Mary Webster, also associated with the directorate of the department of energy and resources in the state of Maine, at meetings with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and a number of other officials in Ottawa. At those meetings, not only was the Fundy tidal power discussed but also the possibility of developing power from the Dicky-Lincoln complex in the main and, as a further alternative, harnessing the power that is available at Passamaquoddy Bay. These undertakings are all bilateral in that both Canada and the United States have to be involved in a very direct way. They are very important because both northeastern United States and eastern Canada must determine how we are going to use the resources we have to produce the power we require to guarantee that we will not freeze in the dark in the days ahead. Because we do not have the guaranteed oil potential of western Canada, we must look to other projects which will give us the same kind of protection which oil in the west guarantees that part of Canada. I think that at all times we must consider our relationships with our friendly neighbour to the south and work out ways and means whereby we can be of assistance to each other, because the energy problem existing in Canada also exists in the United States. We have for a long time been great friends and great partners in developments of value and benefit to both nations. It saddens me at times to think that while we as Canadians went to the United States in the fifties and sixties and tried to convince them that they could assist us in the development of our oil resources by taking from us certain amounts of oil in order to allow us to develop our resources, today we are telling the same people, whom we convinced would have an assured market for oil from Canada, that maybe they cannot have the oil, and maybe this and maybe that and maybe something else. I hope that by looking at alternative resources and alternate means of producing the energy required, we can produce an over-all power pool by a combination of various means of energy resources which are available to all of us and which will benefit both countries. Only last week Mr. Tupper made a determination on the availability of any surplus power resources we might have which would be of benefit to the northern United States. They have to make long-term decisions. They have to know if there will be surplus resources available to them and, if there are not, they have to know how they are going to handle the problem of producing the power they require in the days ahead. So it is important that we work together. It is also important, from Canada's point of view, to look at Fundy tidal power as a very unique type of long-term investment which will be of fantastic benefit, not just to the Atlantic provinces, not just to all of Canada but from an external point of view as well because there can be little doubt that this type of power will be developed around the world. If that is the case, there is no doubt that the tides of Fundy, with the highest tides in the world -- around 53 feet -- will produce power in the kind of volume which will make it feasible and a great asset to Canada. But it will do more than that; it will provide our people with expertise in what is now a unique form of tidal power production. It will give them engineering expertise which will be important and useful. If our businessmen are as good as I think they are, they will use this development to produce a program of ways and means of selling our expertise to other parts of the world where it will also be useful. I think that apart from the federal government, the province of Nova Scotia and the province of New Brunswick involving themselves in this undertaking and moving, as I see it, in a very active and energetic way toward the culmination of all the data required to bring together the information required to call tenders and to get construction under way, we must never lose sight of the fact that we have in existence in this country what is known as the Canada Development Corporation. As far as I am concerned, we have not used the resources available to this corporation in the way we should. There cannot be anything more useful to the people of Canada than to undertake this great project with the dollars of Canadians, so that we can say we own lock, stock and barrel a resource which will produce the power that exists. For this reason I believe the Canada Development Corporation should be involved in the undertakings which are moving forward. We have heard from Baron Rothschild and we know that he is interested. We have heard from Americans. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and myself involved ourselves with a number of representatives of the biggest trading companies in Japan. They are also interested in Fundy tidal power. If all these people are interested in this project, as well as people from the United States, why can we not find the money right here in Canada to undertake the job? I am very pleased with the progress of this project at this time. I do not think for a moment that we should do anything to impede it. Before I sit down I would like to say that I think this type of capital works project is better than the 102 grants which might be made available to various industries in Atlantic Canada for producing employment, stability of employment and viability of the economy of that part of our country. This is the way it can be done. This is the way it should be done. I believe that if we keep going forward as we are now, this is the way it will be done. Hear, hear! Madam Speaker, the question of Funy tidal power as raised by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) is a question which cannot be dealt with in isolation. It is part of the major energy problem facing us today. When I speak of energy, I am referring to all forms of energy whether it be derived from petroleum, from natural gas, from coal, from hydro-generated electricity, from nuclear energy, whether it be fission or fusion or solar, wind and tidal means of generating energy. This is the total framework in which study is needed in terms of both time and money so that priorities can be established. At present this is being looked at with a 12-month energy study conducted within Research and Development under the auspices of the government. It is presently being finalized and I understand, will be tabled very shortly. Looking ahead at this total energy picture, the big prospect of the future is fusion. Fusion is the joining together of two hydrogen atoms at temperatures of 50 million degrees centigrade, at which time the two atoms of hydrogen fuse together and form helium and give off a neutron and energy. If more energy is given out than is put into this reaction, you have an energy-creating nuclear reaction. It is postulated by scientists that within 25 years we may expect to have harnessed energy from the fusion reaction. You may say the year 2000 is a long time away, but I remind you that in 1950, 25 years ago, there were some farsighted scientists who said that if we split the uranium atom we would have fusion energy and could harness energy. As a result, today we have the CANDU reactor. This is recognized as one of the leading nuclear harnessing systems-- Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the hon. gentleman making a speech about nuclear power at the proper time, but I do not appreciate my private member's motion being misused so that he can say whatever he knows or thinks about nuclear power. If the hon. gentleman wants to support my motion, let us hear him say something about Fundy tidal power. On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I think it is critical to this whole question that we get it in perspective. Madam Speaker, I think if we were involved in an energy debate it would be quite proper to take that approach, but the question I have placed before the House relates to Fundy tidal power, its development and the ways it is to be developed. I take strong objection to the hon. member coming with a prepared text relating to nuclear power that is not associated with Fundy tidal power, and using private members' hour to speak about another matter. That is correct, Madam Speaker, and to do that I have to develop the whole picture so that we can put the Fundy tidal power project in proper perspective. I was about to recommend, logically, what should happen to this motion to show why fusion is a direction in which we should go. The fuel for fusion is hydrogen, and hydrogen is abundant as it comes from water. We have a great deal of water on this planet and it is very cheap. This is not the situation with uranium, which is presently the source of energy for the short-term future. The supply of energy derived from uranium is very limited; our proven reserves of uranium are 25 years in total. This does not augur well for our needs in the future. The other aspects of fusion reaction which are attractive are not only the abundance of cheap fuel but the fact that there are no nuclear, radioactive waste products which are environmentally damaging. This has been a very serious problem with fission reaction with which we are coming to grips now in Canada and the United States. Another attractive aspect of fusion reaction is that there are no weapons byproducts. This is a problem we deal with in this House; how to have safeguards against the abuse of weapons byproducts of nuclear fission reaction. If we can agree that the long-term goal rests with fusion, then the rest of the problem is how to fill in the 25 years from now to the year 2000 at which time fusion will be supplying most of our energy. The traditional sources of energy will supply the bulk of our requirements, this energy being derived from oil, natural gas, hydro-generated electricity, coal and nuclear fission. The stopgap measures which will help supplement some of these dwindling supplies of energy are energy or fuel derived from the tar sands as well as energy derived from oil in the Mackenzie Delta and in the Arctic. These have to be looked at in the time frame as well as the money frame. Billions of dollars are needed, as we have heard, just to operate the Syncrude product which is just one of several tar sands projects being contemplated. To get the proven oil from the Mackenzie Delta down the Mackenzie Valley by pipeline will cost about $5 billion for the first pipeline, and other pipelines are being thought of. To get the natural gas and oil from the Arctic Islands by pipelines, which will involve new technology because they go underwater, will also involve billions of dollars. We have a problem of time and money which we have to put together in a 25-year context. Wind is a form of sun energy-- Wind is what you have been producing since you stood up. These three forms of energy are being looked at but are not deemed to provide a large amount of energy in the short term. Solar energy is being looked at very seriously and is being contemplated in Canada. Historically, we have had windmills, but recent developments at NRC have used turbines with increased efficiency. The third major form is tidal power. There are two or three aspects of this, but they have to be put in proper context with the other forms of energy. It is in this framework that the Bay of Fundy tidal power is being studied and will come to its final conclusion in due course. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words on the motion of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). The hon. member who preceded me talked about the wind, the sun, nuclear power, and other things which had nothing to do with the motion before the House which reads, in part: ... the government should give immediate consideration to the undertaking of any further investigations required to develop the information necessary to undertake construction of the dams that will harness the tides of the Bay of Fundy for power, in partnership with the governments of the province of Nova Scotia and of the province of New Brunswick, and using the Canada Development Corporation as the agency for financing the undertaking. I always thought the Canada Development Corporation was established to help the development of ventures beneficial to Canada. You know, the last speaker was so carried away with ideas about atomic energy and nuclear power that I wondered if he had been drinking heavy water. Let me give some background. Ever since 1957 the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has been speaking both in this House and outside in public forums, about Fundy tidal power, and speaking about it as often as possible. In the past those in authority would smile and look askance if you talked about tidal power. Everybody thought the concept was out of this world, was not reasonable, not practical. But the hon. member was not discouraged and, as I say, has been pursuing this subject for many years. Now, all of a sudden we find that learned people throughout the world are interested in tidal power, particularly because we are experiencing an energy crisis. At least our government and other governments tell us this. So it might be useful to recall some of the people who, in the past, favoured the production of power from tides. Going back some years we find that one of the people who favoured turning the dream of tidal power into reality was Michael Wardell, who published the Fredericton daily Gleaner and the Atlantic Advocate. Another was hon. Hugh John Flemming, who supported tidal power development when he was premier of New Brunswick. His close association with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when the right hon. member was prime minister, resulted in the establishment of the Atlantic Development Board, which investigated the possibility of turning the dream into a reality. Then came a change in government in New Brunswick. In addition the idea found favour with leading members of the business community. As times changed, people's opinions about the feasibility of Fundy tidal power changed. The idea is more widely accepted now. Today, both Premier Regan and Premier Richard Hatfield are in favour of developing tidal power. It should be noted that Premier Gerald Regan of Nova Scotia has pressed with vigour, both at home and abroad, the development of power from the tides. He has made public statements in the past weeks and months to the effect that he is not entirely happy with the pace at which the federal government is becoming involved in this project. He wants to see the tempo of development quickened. I must say, however, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has been most co-operative, and there is now hope that, with the help of the minister, the pace of Fundy tidal power development will move more quickly and come to fruition within a reasonable period. Throughout the period when tidal power was merely an abstract idea the leading newspapers of the Maritimes, the Halifax Chronicle Herald and the Saint John Telegraph Journal succeeded in keeping the project alive in the minds of their readership. There were dark days when skepticism almost overcame the region's enthusiasm, and these two newspapers materially aided in keeping the light burning. Returning to the present, it is easy to see that we shall tread a difficult and costly road. Many unknown factors will need to be clarified over the next few years. I have already intimated that in our present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources we have a man who has a real appreciation of the total energy problems facing our nation. We hope he will move ahead with this project. It referred to the La Rance tidal power project in France. It is interesting to mention that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North and I visited this project in France. Very likely we were among the first representatives of Canadian political agencies to visit it. May I quote from the article, as follows: The huge sums of money required and technical problems stalled all other possible projects. However, soaring costs of producing energy from fossil fuels have renewed interest in harnessing tides to generate hydroelectric power, especially in eastern Canada. After a Nova Scotia government delegation visited New York earlier this month for talks with the investment community on a variety of projects, Business Week magazine reported that Canada probably would move faster than any other country in the west on the tidal-power question. The sponsor of the motion told us of the way in which supporters of tidal power had been welcomed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and of the treatment they had been given by the department. This reminds one of what happened a number of years ago when President Franklin D. Roosevelt commissioned a study into the possibility of harnessing the tides of Passamaquoddy Bay, between Maine and Canada. Since Maine is about as far from Washington as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are from Ottawa, the project came to nothing. It did not go ahead. I hope that what has happened in the past will not determine what is to happen in the future. You see, at one time it was held that what was good for General Motors was good for everybody. That is not necessarily so. It was thought at one time that what was good for Quebec and Ontario was good for B.C., P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. Often that was not the case. Les Kirkpatrick, president of Nova Scotia Power Corporation, told Business Week he estimates tidal power would cost 15 mills a kilowatt hour at the Fundy site, roughly comparable to the cost of nuclear power. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) spoke about nuclear power. For his information, proponents of this project contend the advantage of tidal hydro projects is that the fuel -- the tides -- is inflation-proof because it is free and renewable and, unlike river-based projects, tidal plants would not run short of water during droughts. They also say a tidal plant would have a life-span of at least 60 years, double or triple that of a nuclear or fossil-fueled plant. I do not want to take up too much time and talk out this motion. I hope it will come to a vote. I appeal to hon. members to give consideration to the motion sponsored by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) along the lines he has suggested. The Canada Development Corporation should become financially involved in any way possible. Another point I wish to make is that far too often, particularly in latter years, those in the government and some in the opposition have attempted to pluck the feathers of the American eagle and throw darts at the Americans. Who would say that we should not co-operate with them technically if they were willing to become financially involved in Fundy tidal power as long as we had complete control? I think it would be a good thing. We often boast about the undefended border from east to west which has no guards, soldiers and so on. However, we seem to like taking pot-shots at the Americans. I feel we should try to co-operate in projects of this nature. Is the hon. member in the back row trying to say something? I will in a few minutes. I would rather he stayed seated on what brains he has rather than interject from his seat. Oh, oh! I am learning from the Liberals. However, I do not want to learn too much from them, especially from the new experts who came here in 1972 and 1974. They think they have forgotten more than the most senior members of this House will ever know. My good friend, the whip of the Liberal party, realizes the situation. I am sure he understands what is going on. In any event, I wish to take my seat-- Hear, hear! I appreciate applause, even from the other side. I appreciate it from anyone. Let us now hope they will vote for this resolution so that we can make some progress on the east coast, as is often done in Quebec and Ontario. Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir), I am pleased that at last we seem to be making progress with regard to harnessing the power in the tides of the Bay of Fundy. In view of the announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) it seems to me that the government would welcome this motion being passed by the House this afternoon. I could again give my personal credentials for being interested in this matter. After all, my ancestry on my mother's side comes from New Brunswick and my ancestry on my father's side comes from Nova Scotia. That puts me on both sides of the Bay of Fundy. Entirely apart from that I am a Canadian and, across this country, all of us are interested in developing new, sources of power. This is one we have talked about for a long time and it should now be advanced. I am happy to indicate my party's support for this motion and-- Where are they? Once again, Madam Speaker, I am able to speak for my party, the next party, and also for the independent member for Moncton (Mr. Jones). Hear, hear! Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to debate with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in private members' hour. He and I have not had that opportunity too often in this parliament, but I know he always enjoys being a majority, even if it is a majority of one, which he is today. Will the hon. member permit a question? Yes, Madam Speaker. Since the parliamentary secretary has associated himself with me, will he follow my example and make it short? When you are five foot seven, Madam Speaker, everything you do is short. Hear, hear! I commend the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir). I am not one of the new experts from 1972 or 1974. I am an old guy from 1968 who does not know much about it. I say to the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys not to under-estimate the 1972 and 1974 classes as did some of his colleagues. They are now sitting on the outside while these fellows are sitting in here. Hear, hear! Let's hope they pronounce themselves on occasion and not just stay sitting. The unhappy part is that the older members use all the time, and this is very frustrating to the newer members. From my earlier participation in this debate, the mover of this motion will know that, even though I am from Ontario, and those nasty words -- central Canada -- I have supported this proposition ever since coming to this House, and more particularly when I had the honour to serve as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. At that time I visited the area to look at the tides. The hon. member is correct; they do rise 53 feet. I did not measure them, but I am prepared to take the hon. member's word. The mover of the motion and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys will, I am sure, concede that the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has given fantastic encouragement to something that was only a dream or an idea. Rather than scoffing or laughing at it, this minister has taken up this matter. As to whether the Canada Development Corporation is the proper agency to co-ordinate it, I feel that this is something a little down the road, a little in the future. I feel it should be done on a government to government basis. Frankly, I have my doubts about whether the CDC should be moving into this particular field. The CDC was told it would pretty well have complete freedom insofar as operating in the business world is concerned. We may be able to make suggestions, but we should not dictate what it should be doing in any particular field. The merits of this operation are well known. There has been a series of reports. In October, 1969, there was a report on the feasibility of tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy, and the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board concluded that economic development of tidal power in the Bay of Funday was not feasible under prevailing circumstances. I am sorry I have to read that conclusion but I wanted to get that portion of the report correct. The conclusion was that the project was not economically feasible, but they did not rule out the possibility of the project being feasible from an engineering point of view. Subsequently a new report was prepared by the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board. This is described as a preliminary reassessment of the feasibility of tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy. That report came out in September, 1974. Here again, the subject is being considered by the three governments primarily concerned -- the federal government, the government of New Brunswick and the government of Nova Scotia. Both the provincial governments have given an impetus to this report. When I heard this debate was to take place today I did some checking, and I learned one or two things which might be of interest to the hon. member. In fact I might even suggest to him that his motion is a trifle premature although I realize that on other occasions he was probably six or seven years ahead of his time. Today, however, he may be just a couple of months ahead. The three governments I have mentioned have agreed to a further study, with respect to which the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the cost and the two provincial governments 25 per cent each. They will be looking into two main areas, first, the marketability of power and, second, the engineering requirements. I can say that the cabinet has approved this project -- a decision was taken last week. I do not know whether this information has been made public or not; usually the hon. member gets such information very early because of his special interest in the subject. In any event the study has been approved, so the motion he is putting forward may be just a little premature -- maybe we shall be dealing with it in a couple of months' time. I know, Madam Speaker, there are some hon. members from the classes of '72 and '74 who are more knowledgeable regarding the engineering aspects of this proposal than I can ever hope to be, so rather than use up all the time available to me I should like to give them an opportunity to speak. Question! I am pleased to join this debate for the remaining few minutes and to put on record that I am very much in favour of any power project which is economical, which fits in with our environmental concerns, and which adds to our total inventory of available energy. I think one of the fundamental things in any energy policy that Canada must have is a substantial switch in the supply of energy away from petroleum base to hydraulic, to coal, to nuclear, and if the project we are presently debating shows signs of being economical we should proceed to study it. One of the concerns in the whole energy picture that I don't think we have talked about very much in this country, or in this thirtieth parliament where we are changing a lot of the base loads from petroleum input to electrical energy, is the role of the provincial electrical utilities. I think the time is coming when the projects that they will be building will be tied together through a national grid, and there will have to be some type of agreement among these utilities as to the timing of all these projects. It does not seem to me to make great sense that one utility would have a very large project coming on stream at about the same time as a utility in a neighbouring province. In such a case both the utilities would have a surplus; they would go to some lengths to make use of this power, and then presumaly both of them might very well end up in the position of being short of power. On the basis of what the hon. member is proposing we will require a good deal of investment on and research into a much stronger grid across Canada, into which provincial utilities can tie. I would hope research would indicate that we could go considerably above what is considered to be the design limit of 750,000 volts transmission at the present time. I am anxious that we do some research work on direct current transmission because in terms of the size of the country, and the length of the grid we need to deal with, these are very important considerations. However, in terms of the project we are talking about, I am most concerned that, however valid it may be from an economic point of view, and however it may be required for the supply of energy, someone should take a look at how we phase in all energy projects across Canada. I just do not see that the Government of Canada has the economic resources to be building the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, to be pursuing the CANDU technology, the gasification of coal, and developing all of this all at the same time. Presumably we might end up with a good deal of the yield of that type of investment coming on stream at the same time. One of the most important things we should be doing at this point is to stage matters so that each project or each level of technology in its own time would follow in its right order. I am encouraged from what little reading I have done on this project to believe that the economics of it are perhaps a lot closer to being viable than we once thought. I remember having read about this in some detail some three or four years ago, and at that time there was a question of whether it would ever be economically viable. But at that time we were not thinking of the price of oil on the world market approaching $12 a barrel. My understanding is that if we have to deal with oil prices at that level this project does become economically feasible. There is one other thing we should indicate. It works in very well with some of the thoughts I have on the energy situation, a situation where a good deal of the input comes from nuclear, from coal, from hydraulic. I want to associate myself also with the remarks of the previous speaker concerning the Canada Development Corporation. I just do not think that this is really the vehicle that we should be using. One of the things about the Canada Development Corporation surely is that we hope it will invest in such projects as companies that have a high degree of Canadian technology, or in areas where it is most important that Canadian ownership be maintained. I hope we will move before too long to enable the public to invest in that corporation. Without a viable portfolio it will not attract investor confidence, and if we saddle the Candda Development Corporation with the cost of all kinds of studies and so on, I suggest that this would interfere with that very basic objective. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the hour appointed for private members' business has expired. At six o'clock the House took recess. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when the House called it five o'clock, CEMA was created as a result of the adoption of Bill C-176 at the end of 1971. Under that act, Parliament decreed that the provincial marketing boards should take into account the interests of both producers and consumers, and that the National Farm Products Marketing Council should supervise the application of the act. Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding that Bill C-176 was intended as legislation to ensure co-operation between the producers, on the one hand, who deserve remuneration for their products and a reasonable profit margin to allow them good enough an income to provide for their families decently, and the consumers, on the other hand, who should be able to purchase quality eggs, in adequate quantities, and at a reasonable price. I therefore saw this legislation as a means to come to a better mutual understanding and to establish within our boundaries the marketing of an essential farm product in a way which would have met the aspirations of both consumers and producers. The facts revealed to the committee showed that despite instructions from Parliament, the National Farm Products Marketing Board and the CEMA have neglected the interests of both producers and consumers as regards egg marketing. This is unfortunate, but those are the facts which came out of our meetings in this committee. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of planning before CEMA began its operations and the poor quality of its administration are at the origin of the failure of this marketing programme. The evidence showed that there was little or no cooperation between CEMA, the National Farm Products Marketing Board and the minister himself. The committee could not examine the reports of the CEMA and National Farm Products Marketing Board meetings because there were no such reports, which is extremely irregular. I have always understood that if an agency is legally constituted, it must keep minutes of its meetings and of the decisions that it makes so that those responsible for the control of the operations may report to whom it may concern at the appropriate time and place. During the discussion on Bill C-176, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) and myself had emphasized the need for an effective control on imports and exports. We had requested at the time that section (2)c) of Bill C-176 include any imported natural product, while the bill mentioned only any Canadian natural product. We wanted to include the provision that any imported natural product must be submitted to the same marketing requirements as Canadian farm products. I well remember, Mr. Speaker, that during the night of December 30, 1971, when I was sitting exactly where my honourable colleague from Moncton (Mr. Jones) has just sat down, I had moved, seconded by the honourable member for Richmond, an amendment to Bill C-176 to include in the act the provision that imported products should be submitted to the same regulations as Canadian products, in other words, that any imported natural product should be marketed through marketing agencies so that these boards could control the need to import or export such or such a product. Indeed, if one refers to the proceedings of December 30, 1971, one finds that at that time the amendment was put and the government side voted against the inclusion in that legislation of regulations to have imported natural products marketed in the same way as Canadian products. Today, we find ourselves faced with a problem that would probably not exist if we had more assurances that that problem would have been solved by CEMA because they would have had efficient means to prevent importers from importing eggs when Canada did not need them. That is where the crux of the problem lies. We found in our discussions that it was mainly the importation of eggs for consumption, table eggs, as they are commonly called, when we did not need them that caused the problem. Those eggs were marketed without being indentified while the eggs of Canadian producers remained in storage, and those places had no rotation system, that is, eggs were coming in and out by the same door. As often eggs were imported and took the place of Canadian eggs on the domestic market, Canadian eggs aged because they remained at the back of the storage and could not be taken out. That lead CEMA to order the destruction of a certain amount of eggs that were no longer fit for consumption. Mr. Speaker, what is the point of having a Canadian Farm Products Marketing Act if we give free course of action to profiteers who import products and market them when we have domestic producers who cannot dispose of their production. They are profiteers, people who take advantage of a situation, who take advantage of a market to make profits while our farming organizations such as our Canadian Marketing Agency should be struggling in an almost impossible situation. To my mind, nobody here would have done better because we lacked the tools that would have allowed us to do more. I feel that is the core of the problem. People might say: The hon. member for Bellechasse must understand one thing, that is we must trade, export and import. I agree on that. However, when we import table eggs at a price three times higher than that of breaker eggs, which we can export, we must export a great number to be able to reach the price of table eggs, which we can and sometimes must import, when we are forced by need to do so. Mr. Speaker, I feel we are not being fair with the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Although he may be blamed, he has a part to play. He has his responsibilities, but if we deal behind his back, he will not be able to make miracles. The duty of the Minister of Agriculture is to assure the Canadian people that they will be able to obtain the amount and quality of food required to meet their needs. Well, Mr. Speaker, it so happens that permit and licence controls as to farm products export and import are in the hands of another minister, who is often pressured by those who are interested in the import and export of these products for a profit and not for the common good of our country. The National Farm Product Marketing Council and CEMA faced difficulties because, in spite of the leaders' goodwill, 3 million dozens of eggs have been put on the market. This is due to a quota set under Canadian law. In the meantime, importers have obtained licences to import from other countries a similar quantity of eggs put on the market without any quota and not liable to the Canadian products marketing. This factor tends to alter the normal play of supply and demand, since quotas can be established only from the data and needs of our home market. Mr. Speaker, such is the problem. This is my view on this question and this is the way I have spoken about it in the night of December 30, 1971. Neither consumers nor producers are satisfied with it. I know producers who have suffered considerable losses. We still have to take that problem into consideration and study it as it really is. Let's think a moment of the losses sustained by egg producers, when the laying hen has given everything it could, when it has produced everything it could in the 16 square inches of space that it can use. Then, he has to put it on the market under the form of meat, which is still good for human consumption, but at what price? How can we expect egg producers to compensate with the sale of a certain product, when the price is below cost and they have to stay in production to last through the production cycle if they want at some time to make a profit and remain in business. When eggs are sold in the supermarkets, are the Canadian housewifes in a position to check whether they are buying Canadian versus American, Cuban or other eggs? Definitely no. All they know is they are buying eggs. I therefore believe it would be in the Canadian public's interest if we had an act under which products and product origin had to be identified, so our Canadian housewives would know. It is very well to tell customers to buy Canadian. But when the goods are not marked as to origin, how do you expect the consumer to follow suit? I feel the time has come we had in our statutes specific legislation providing for compulsory identification of products, applying even in the case of eggs. It is already done in gloves for instance. When we import gloves, whether from India or Japan, they are so marked. Why not have the same thing with farm products? In my opinion, this would be a good way to protect those responsible for the management of farm products marketing against unneeded import penetration. We could then gauge those people's efficiency. We manackle them, we create enormous problems for them, and then we tell them they were not efficient, they were unsuccessful. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to be honest with those people and act in such a way they could resort to this measure. If they do not succeed to their objective, we will then be in a position to blame them, to tell them they are incompetent, not fit to occupy such or such a post in such a government agency, including the Farm Products Marketing Agency. Mr. Speaker, I want to defend the interests of both producers and consumers. In so doing, I believe I work for the best interests of all Canadians. I believe this measure is required, otherwise, we will never succeed in meeting the objective we are aiming at. I think that licenses for egg imports or exports should be issued under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The minister knows my views about this. It does not mean that I do not trust the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), but it is his responsibility to see that as concerns food Canadians are supplied in a reasonable way and reasonble quantities. If we lay some obligations upon him we also should give him tools so that he can fulfill satisfactorily his duties to all Canadians. I am aware of the constitutional jurisdiction problem regarding imports and exports control and it is a very ticklish issue. When you wish to get your supplies from a province, a provincial marketing agency tells you: It is under my jurisdiction, I am the one who decides if such or such product must be imported or not. In another province it will be the same. The Canadian taxpayers have to pay for all this and while we are quarrelling and go to courts, lawyers are getting richer, judges are bored and have trouble making a decision. We, the parliamentarians, make everything possible to contribute to a spirit of mutual understanding among Canadians. We make everything we can so that legislation be efficient, that westerners and easterners be able to live from their work. The Western wheat producer asks exactly the same thing. What is our goal, Mr. Speaker? We want to be able to distribute throughout Canada those quality goods produced by Canadians for Canadians in sufficient quantities. If we achieve that in the Parliament of Canada, why would any agency throw a spanner in the works, spoil that labour? We really could meet that objective so that eventually, throughout Canada, from Vancouver to Newfoundland, there might be some butter on every table. Whether that butter is produced in Quebec, in New-Brunswick or in Ontario is irrelevant provided it reaches its destination. If farmers need grain to process it into pork products, dairy products, or eggs, the agencies and producers must be able to rely on regular supplies to carry on such processing and then put that product unto public markets, according to some orderly organization, some appropriate mechanism -- which I expected to find in Bill C-176. I as a Canadian would not wish this failure of the egg marketing concept to act as a deterrent for other producers. But all of us should roll up our sleeves and make a reasonable effort to try and cope with this situation. If the Act has to be amended, let it be amended; if restraints have to be imposed, let them be imposed, but let something be done before it is too late, because every Canadian is watching this Parliament, watching everything we do, everything we shall decide, everything we shall do. Shall we accept to be paralysed because of the temporary failure of an agency called CEMA, or shall we go ahead and provide the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with additional powers? Any mistake we might make could not be worse than any past one, and could be termed another failure. But I do not think we will make a mistake if we act in that way and use the necessary means to achieve that goal. What is the goal? It is better distribution throughout Canada of food products at prices tailored to the consumer's ability to pay and bringing farm producers enough revenue to allow them to live decently. That is all we are asking for, nothing more. I cannot understand why, in 1975, 264 members of Parliament should fail to solve that problem. No need to wait a hundred years to do something. The time has come. Let us do everything we can and Canadians will be most grateful. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will be speaking, and he has indicated to me that he was not prepared for this and may want an extra two or three minutes. I think there would be agreement to that. Mr. Speaker, we concur in the suggestion and I commend the hon. member for making it on the basis, of course, that the minister will not go excessively over 15 minutes. We agree, Mr. Speaker -- 15 minutes for ordinary mortals, and 17 for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). Agreed. Is it agreed that speeches be limited to 15 minutes, with reasonable extension for the minister? Agreed. He needs all the time he can get. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate although I believe the time could be better used for some important legislation. Hear, hear! We can make a comparison, Mr. Speaker, between some of the world's best remembered speeches. For instance, the Gettysburg address comprised only 268 words. Somebody counted the words used in the committee hearings inquiring into egg marketing, and it was a million some hundred thousand. I only hope that 268 words of my speech will be remembered tonight. This thing called CEMA, the first born child of national marketing legislation, was asked for by the producers and the provinces, and it is basically their responsibility to provide the co-operation to see that it does what they want. Some people have said that last year I could have controlled CEMA. Under the authority I have as Minister of Agriculture all I could have done was tell them they were finished by withdrawing the federal authority vested in them. I thought it better not to do that. Some people have said that I covered up the facts. I want to say again as I said before, that is a falsehood and anyone who has studied the situation knows that. I hope that within the next ten days we can announce the appointments to the National Farm Products Marketing Council, Mr. Speaker. On December 16 I gave the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency an ultimatum: come up with a workable plan or the federal government will take away your power to operate. Since mid-December CEMA has reduced the quota allocation to seven provinces by 10 per cent. The other three provinces' quotas were not reduced because they are each less than 2 per cent of the national quota. Whether this 10 per cent cutback is felt in the hen house or merely on paper is up to the provincial egg boards. These boards have given us proof that they have a plan that will work. I give you an example. Early in February the provincial egg boards voted that CEMA be given the power to seize, detain and dispose of eggs and fowl that are excess to quota. This is a big step in the right direction. If given this power CEMA would become a policeman with a club. Until now the agency has not been able to do anything more than shake its finger. The fact that the provinces realize that CEMA must have this added power is the biggest news for the Canadian egg industry since CEMA was born. Recently CEMA has also ruled that provinces with less than 5 per cent of the national quota can adjust their quotas up or down by 10 per cent on a quarterly basis to supply seasonal tourist demand. This kind of flexibility is proof that the agency is maturing and can deal with changing situations. CEMA'S future depends on the provincial boards. This is a fact. The parliamentary committee on egg marketing, I as the Minister of Agriculture and, most important, CEMA'S members, are demanding an end to deficit financing. In fact, all provinces have agreed to pay as they go. That is the kind of news for which we have been waiting. Some still owe CEMA backdebts for 1974. But I am glad to see most of the provinces have now either paid up their debts incurred in 1974 or have made binding agreements to rid themselves of these debts by the end of the year. These are some real proofs that egg producers are going to make CEMA work. I would make a good sized wager that we are only one year away from having the most sophisticated planned production system in the world. That does not mean there are not a lot of problems that must be tackled. There are, and they must be tackled promptly, and without regional bias. The parliamentary committee probed many of these problems. There are specific parts of this report that I feel could be premature. There are other recommendations that could be so hard to work, or so costly to carry out, that they would be of less benefit to producers than meets the eye. I want to outline briefly the major strengths and pitfalls of the report. Its major strength is its recommendation that CEMA have tough policing powers. This goes hand in hand with the recommendation that each regulated producer be put on a computerized card system. This demands that provincial egg boards feed what each producer's flock size is, the age of his birds, his daily egg production and the death rate of his layers, into the computer each month. These figures, double-checked with a pullet permit system and grading station records, will do two things. They will let CEMA tailor supply much closer to demand and give the facts needed to get a clean sheet from the auditors. This bill get rid of a lot of guesswork. We will know how many hens we have, where they are, and how many eggs they are laying. Right now producers are paid the full price for their eggs when they take them to market. If the market sours, CEMA and the provincial boards charge producers a levy to cover their losses. The committee recommends discarding this system, and instead giving producers an initial payment covering production costs. The final payment would be what remained of the market price, after deducting the marketing costs. There would be no levies for egg removal, and no debts for either CEMA or the provincial boards. This system has been used successfully by other commodities in Canada. If it can be applied in the egg industry it could break important ground for the egg producers of Canada. The partner recommendation to this calls for CEMA to have a third party work out the costs of production in each province. I want to see all farmers producing over their quota to be penalized, so that the people who abide by the rules are not ripped off. I want the provincial egg boards to play fair ball, too. Some have been paying the salvage price to their producers over-quota eggs, then getting a higher price from CEMA for some of these same eggs by passing them off as within-quota eggs. The inquiry uncovered this and I commend the committee members for doing so. It has to be cleared up. The committee calls for licensing of imports and exports. The recommendation is that the maximum volume of eggs licensed in any month should not exceed the average volume traded in that month during the last five years. I am right behind licensing all imports and exports. However, I also want to see a provision for licensing larger shipments of either imports or exports. There may be a periodic need or an opportunity for larger shipments that will not hurt, and may benefit, our producers and consumers. I do not want to see producers gear up production to fill a phony market that does not pay them the price they need. The report also wants the Consultative Advisory Committee to CEMA to review and assess all major policy issues. Is there not a real danger that bias and self-interest here could taint the input this group would give? I also have doubts about putting a grade "A" storage quality egg on the retail shelf. Canadian grade standards are one of the highest in the world. I do not think consumers want to give up this high quality. On top of this there will hopefully be few, if any, eggs in storage. So, this grade could seldom be on the retail shelf and certainly not in all centres. I think all Canadians are entitled to high quality produce of all kinds, including eggs. I back the recommendation calling for two additional appointments to the board of directors. I will work with CEMA to do this but I will insist that these new directors have a national outlook. I do not want the hands of these two new people to be tied with political strings or regional loyalties. I would also caution, again, that there may be more problems than we can spot at first glance in carrying out some of the committee's recommendations. Let me give you a couple of examples. Selling eggs at a discount price to the disadvantaged is something I am right behind. Consumers will be, too. But, can it be done for a reasonable price? Should all Canadians not help foot the bill? What are the full implications of regulating all producers with flocks of more than 100 birds? There are many, and we have to probe them carefully before we steer the industry in that direction. As I said, if the eggs are to be sold at discount prices to the disadvantaged, should not all society foot the bill? I do not think that the producers of a commodity should be asked to pay if the surplus production of any given product is to be made available to the disadvantaged at a lower price. Consumers should welcome many of the regulations. Selling discount eggs to the disadvantaged is only one. The report also calls for marking all eggs with the country of origin; rotating CEMA stocks to prevent spoilage; and more reporting to the public. Now you know how I weigh these recommendations. One more thing you should know as grist for the debate is that CEMA today owns no shell egg stocks. You should also be aware that CEMA has already implemented a number of these recommendations. I will list some for you. The agency has hired a manager. It is giving a monthly report of its activities to the council. In Nova Scotia production facts are being fed into a computer on a trial basis. CEMA is in the midst of a thorough audit of provincial egg boards. The agency is already exploring export markets. Members of the National Farm Products Marketing Council have just returned from the Middle East and Europe. Some sales have been made in Hong Kong. More and being negotiated right now with other countries. Cases of one province accusing another of dumping are being investigated. If the evidence is strong enough, charges will be laid. A number of the provincial boards have cracked down and are getting truer hen counts and production records. Today I received a telegram from seven, possibly eight, provinces which told me what they are doing. I am happy about what most of them are doing. What hon. members do with this report will have a major impact on the egg industry. I support this report, as a source of suggestions to give CEMA leadership in the future. When CEMA fulfils all of these recommendations, we all -- most of all members of the parliamentary committee and members of CEMA -- will have something to crow about. Mr. Speaker, before I make my main comments I wonder if I might ask the minister to answer a question. He mentioned that he had received, from the provinces, telegrams outlining provincial plans. Could the minister take the House into his confidence and table these telegrams, so that members of the House can also take an objective look at them? That way we shall know what CEMA is doing and where it is going. Or, if the minister does not want to answer this question now, or heed my request, perhaps he will take what I have raised as notice. Order, please. In the interest of procedure it would be proper to consider the hon. member's request as a request for the unanimous consent of the House to allow the minister to answer this question. Does the House agree to allow the minister to answer the question, if he wishes to answer? Agreed. Mr. Speaker, the best way I can answer is by saying that most provinces agreed to what we asked them to do, although some have certain reservations. I think the hon. member knows I cannot table the telegrams unless and until I go through the usual procedure and obtain permission of the provinces. I will do that as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing the minister to speak. I will not take up the time of the House in elaborating on the history of CEMA, for it is well known to hon. members. I do not think any member is proud about what has happened in egg marketing since the inception of the national egg marketing plan. The difficulties arose because of mismanagement, as the committee found, and because of personality conflicts within CEMA. These factors were responsible for many of the agency's difficulties. If we are to talk about one major problem, from my point of view it is management of the program that is lacking. As a result, I hope a lot of changes will come about, such as those recommended in our report. My main reason for speaking this evening is to state that we in the Conservative party feel we did not have enough information on which to base an objective decision when the committee report was made on December 16. One problem is that we could not have the auditors as witnesses. It has already been mentioned that the management committee did not have an opportunity to appear before the special committee. The provincial ministers of agriculture made a decision which changed the course of what happened. That also had a bearing on what we felt was really a "short change" because of the time restraints on the committee. We feel this matter has not been really resolved. The minister spoke this evening. His speech was certainly soothing in many respects. However, we still do not believe the matter is resolved. We would like to see it discussed further, and the place for that discussion is the Standing Committee on Agriculture. As I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) this evening, he reminded me of the syndrome that exists in that corner of the House with regard to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). When things were going wrong, he certainly was not to blame. He did not want to accept any responsibility. It was put off of and on to other parties, but you can bet your last dollar that if and when the plan works, the Minister of Agriculture will be the first to stand in this House of Commons, and at meetings across the country, accepting full credit for making the plan work. He cannot have it both ways. There is certainly enough evidence to indicate that the Minister of Agriculture really did not take his job seriously. That is another reason why we want this whole matter looked into further. Probably the most important point now is what will happen to CEMA in the future. Do we want it to continue? There is no doubt about that. However, we feel it should have another chance to prove itself. Hopefully, the recommendations and program for CEMA and the producers will be implemented in the future. If we agree on that aspect, we must move ahead to try to make the program work. If, after two years, we find that CEMA has lost control over the provinces, the producers and its own inventory system, we should take another hard look at it. If that happens possibly it should then be disbanded. Until that time, however, all parties in this House should work toward making it a better vehicle, not only for the producers but for the consumers. One cannot exist without the other. They both have to work together much more closely than in the past. Before I resume my seat I wish to move an amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence): That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after "1974" and substituting therefor the following: "be not now concurred in but be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for consideration and revision in order to better examine and inquire into the provisions of the terms of reference of the said special committee, other than the instruction to report by deadline." We feel this is reasonable, especially in light of the statement this evening by the Minister of Agriculture that the provinces are making some moves to set some of that information out for him. If the amendment is accepted, I hope the matter will be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture as quickly as possible so that the points raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), myself, and others can be dealt with there. At first glance I have some reservation as to the acceptability of the amendment as proposed by the hon. member. Because of the time limitation on tonight's debate and the fact we may not deal with this tomorrow, I hesitate to invite procedural debate. I do not want to prevent hon. members from presenting argument. If I were to make a decision on the proposed amendment, I would reject it. I will leave it to the House. I see two members seem ready to speak. I invite their comments. In view of the limitation placed on the House by the clock, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that Your Honour hold your ruling on the amendment until ten o'clock. Mr. Speaker, it may not be necessary at this time, but I was simply going to argue that, in my view, this amendment is out of order. In light of the time limitation I do not think it is necessary to pursue that course. I was trying to avoid taking away the time available for debate. If it agreed, I will hold my decision until ten o'clock. Hon. members may wish to enter into a procedural debate at that time. We will then see what is the wish of the House. Mr. Speaker, I simply suggest that the Chair hold its decision until the next time this order is called. There is not much point in having a decision at ten o'clock tonight unless we are going to come back to the motion. I will withhold my decision until later. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) dealing with the report of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Egg Marketing tabled in this House on December 16 last. I say this because, as a new member of parliament, participation on this special committee gave me a unique opportunity to become familiar with the important role which can be played in our parliamentary system by special committees which are given specific terms of reference and required to report back to the House by a specific date. This specific mandate and timetable provided the sort of incentive which encourages committee members of all parties to concentrate on the task at hand with a degree of determination and objectivity which, in my brief experience, is not always present in the sittings of some of our regular standing committees. In the few minutes available to me tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore certain recommendations contained in the report of the special committee. My selection of these recommendations, four in number, is made simply on the basis of my view as to their significance in relation to the overall subject of attempting to regulate egg production and marketing in this country. The recommendations to which I refer are as follows: H-2 and H-4-- Implementation of import/export licensing and specific identification of imported table eggs A-6-- Annual progress review by all signatories to the federal-provincial agreement B-5-- The active involvement of the Consultative Advisory Committee including meaningful participation by representatives of the non-producer segment In the matter of recommendation H-2 dealing with the need for an import/export licensing system in accordance with acceptable provisions under the GATT agreement, it seems to me essential that CEMA have as a minimal responsibility that of maintaining appropriate records and issuing regular reports on those table eggs which are making their way on to the Canadian market having originated from sources outside Canada. It became clear to the committee during the hearings that this is an area over which CEMA has in the past exercised no control. An example of the significance of imported table eggs to this whole question of controlling production and distribution of eggs within Canada is the recent importation of 926,00 dozen eggs from the United States for marketing to Canadian consumers during the weeks ending from December 7, 1974, through January 4, 1975. This is the equivalent of roughly 50 carloads. Bearing in mind that in the province of import, which I understand in this instance to have been Ontario, the committee is recommending that production be controlled in the case of flocks of 100 or more hens, it is quite obvious that an importation to the extent mentioned must constitute a significant factor in the overall production and distribution of eggs in the Province of Ontario. Whether or not CEMA itself should be involved in the allocation of import/export licensing permits is something which will, no doubt, require further consideration. It does seem to me, however, that the agency would be providing inadequate reporting statistics on egg production and marketing in the months ahead were it not to make specific reference to the quantities being imported and exported month by month. In fact, Mr. Speaker, failure to take into account the quantity of table eggs coming into Canada from outside tends to render the whole scheme of production and marketing controls within Canada something of an exercise in futility. Recommendation H-4 relates to the identification of table eggs in the supermarkets. It is my belief that Canadian consumers of agricultural products are equally as interested as those purchasing manufactured products in knowing that the product they have been offered originates outside their native land. In fact, it might be argued that consumers would be more interested in knowing they were purchasing non-Canadian eggs than they might be if it were a matter of other non-Canadian products purchased on a daily or routine basis. In my view it is entirely possible that an indirect but important effect of such identification of imported eggs could be the eventual reduction in the overall quantity of table eggs imported into Canada each year. The third recommendation on which I should like to comment is the one dealing with the involvement of the provincial ministers of agriculture. The national plan under which CEMA derives its very existence was an agreement signed by a number of signatories, including the provincial ministers of agriculture. I would emphasize this point for the benefit of the hon. member for St. John's East who is still maintaining that sole responsibility rests with one of the 11 ministers involved, that is to say, the federal minister. The co-operation of these provincial ministers and provincial marketing boards which fall directly or indirectly under their jurisdiction is obviously of paramount necessity if the marketing scheme envisaged for handling eggs in this country is to work effectively. For this reason it is my view that provincial marketing boards should not be permitted to announce their withdrawal from CEMA in the absence of prior consultation between such provincial boards and their respective provincial ministers as well as with the federal Minister of Agriculture. It has been noted recently that two provinces, British Columbia and Newfoundland, have announced their intention to withdraw. What has not been noted is any indication of prior discussion at senior ministerial levels prior to such announcements having been made by the heads of the two marketing boards. It is for this reason that I wish to underscore recommendation A-6 which requires at the very minimum an annual meeting of the National Farm Products Marketing Council with all signatories to the federal-provincial agreement and other directly affected parties, to review progress and achievements as well as to air areas of concern to the industry in order to avoid serious problems which could be developing. In my view, the potential withdrawal of any one of the provinces from the national marketing scheme is indeed a most serious problem. All aspects should be carefully considered and discussed at a national meeting prior to any option for withdrawal being exercised or even announced in an official way. The last point to which I wish to address my remarks this evening is recommendation B-5. This is the recommendation that endorses the concept of involving what I might refer to as the other side of the equation in the many consultations that must obviously form part and parcel of CEMA'S operations. It became obvious to members of the committee during the recent hearings that both CEMA and the various regulatory bodies within the provinces are strictly producer oriented. Yet it is clear that the production and consumption of eggs in Canada is of as much concern to the consumer element of the general public as it is to the producer element. Failure to accede to this concept of involving non-producer elements of the public in at least an advisory capacity will lead in the long run to further credibility gaps in the operation of the egg production and marketing scheme. Recommendation B-5 attempts to accomplish this goal without at the same time endeavouring to control the decision making ability of the CEMA organization. It does this by proposing an effective and meaningful role for the Consultative Advisory Committee that was envisaged in the original federal-provincial agreement. The problem to date has been that this particular committee has not been activated in any meaningful way. I believe that all recommendations in this report of the special committee on egg marketing are important. My selection of four of these recommendations for purposes of discussion in this debate should not be interpreted as an inference on my part that I do not consider the other recommendations to be significant. Indeed they are, and I have no hesitation in endorsing them in the hope that all recommendations in the report will be given most careful consideration by the various authorities to whom they are directed. In conclusion let me say I tend to agree with the emphases placed by the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for St. John's East, on those recommendations contained in the report to which he has made reference. My major disagreement, however, is with his continuing efforts to place the blame for the problems of CEMA to date at the feet of the federal Minister of Agriculture, when he so well knows, as do all participating members of the committee, that CEMA will only be effective when it receives the full support, in practice as well as theory, of all 11 ministers across the country. Madam Speaker, I do not believe I will take up all the time that has been allotted to me. Those of us who were privileged to sit on the parliamentary committee that studied the egg mess for a number of weeks put in an extremely busy time at meetings which were going on morning, noon and night. I think I speak for all of those members when I say that it was a very interesting time. Many of us learnt -- at least, we think we have learned -- a great deal about the egg industry of this country. We learned a new language, really. Not only did we learn about quotas but we were introduced to such phrases as the "crack market", the "shell trade", the "fresh trade". Indeed, it was almost like going back to law school and learning legal phrases and jargon. A lot of us had to learn a completely new phraseology. "Sunny side up." Yes, "sunny side up". I think we got a little too involved with many of the details, and this is one reason I am not going to go into too much detail tonight. Underneath it all, Madam Speaker, when you really sat back and thought about it, was there not something, and is there not still something, screwy about what is going on in Canada and in the world today, especially in terms of agricultural production? We all know there is a world wide shortage of protein foods. Yet all we talk about are quotas, restrictions, and measures such as that, including planned production and supply control, all of which ultimately will have but one effect and one effect only, namely, the limiting of production of a very valuable food, the lack of which is causing starvation in some parts of the world today. As I say, there must be something screwy about this. I must say the minister did not get off as easily in the committee as he got in the House tonight. He can disclaim responsibility all he wants. But I would remind him that the federal Minister of Agriculture accepted responsibility for a national egg marketing scheme in this country and, to put it as simply as I can, this Minister of Agriculture boobed, and boobed badly, in respect to this particular industry. If the minister was going to take on this job in face of world wide shortage of protein, in face of the supply situation, the feed situation and the existing production situation in this country, then I do not think he can shrug off his responsibility in the way he attempted to shrug it off in the House this evening. During the committee hearings this simple question was put directly to the minister: "Mr. Minister, do you not believe that you bear some responsibility for what is happening now and what has happened in the egg industry in this country? " There was, Madam Speaker, a very pregnant pause for a minute, and then he finally admitted that he did have some responsibility for it. Rather than go into detail, let me try to paint with a broad brush what has gone wrong in the industry today. Speaking of broad brushes, I must say this about the committee. I think that committee was a hard working committee which delved into all sorts of things. As I said, we worked morning, noon and night. But so far as the very touchy situation that the minister had backed himself into is concerned, I must say that the committee turned out to be a complete whitewash with regard to the responsibility that the Minister of Agriculture should bear to the egg industry of this country. In saying that, I do not want any member to follow up with the sort of parroting that we have heard tonight and say that we are trying to blame everything on to poor old Gene Whelan. That is not what I am saying. I do not think that is what the members of my party have been saying, and I do not think that anyone who listened to the committee hearings would attempt to reach that conclusion. But what we do say, Madam Speaker, and what the committee, due to its majority of members of the government party, was not honest enough to admit to itself, is that a major responsibility for the mess that existed rested in the office of the Minister of Agriculture; there is no question about that. Because of what I have done, CEMA has now got a new general manager. Because of what I have done, the provincial boards are now playing ball where they were not playing ball before. Because of what I have now done, within a year we will have a worth-while national egg marketing scheme in this country". Hear, hear! But the point is that it could have been done two years ago by this same minister, and it was not done. There have been two years of delay, waste and procrastination by this particular minister. Hear, hear! Nonsense! There is no question in my mind-- Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to know whether the hon. member who has the floor would permit a question. Would the hon. member allow a question? However, under the circumstances and due to the record of that particular member, I would rather have him wait until I have completed my comments. Oh, oh! If some of the hon. members had had the gumption about a year ago to stand up and call chicken, we would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves. In any event, there is no question in my mind that a good portion of the blame not only belongs to the Minister of Agriculture but belongs to some of the provincial governments and provincial boards that exist right now across this country. We are not trying to lay the blame completely and exclusively at the feet of the Minister of Agriculture. Heaven only knows that he is responsible, even though is not willing to admit it. But I do say that another element in this -- and you should merely look at the history of this tangled web of the egg industry to realize it -- is that the provincial governments and marketing boards in the first instance had to come on bended knee to plead with the then minister of agriculture to get a national egg marketing scheme adopted. I say in defence of this government -- although not in defence of this Minister of Agriculture because he was not minister then -- that certainly at that time it was in the interests of the provincial egg marketing boards and of the provincial governments to have a national egg marketing scheme. I do not think that there is any question in anybody's mind that they were willing to try to get the federal government to take on the scheme, but unwilling to give to the federal government the power, the control and the policing mechanism necessary to make it work. But I do say to you that the careless if not negligent minister of agriculture of the day, followed by his bungling successor in this office, failed miserably at that time to talk turkey to the provincial boards and provincial governments. Oh, oh! You got them going. They are awake now. We got into a hassle, and now a couple of years too late everybody is seeing the light, including the provincial boards and the provincial governments. They themselves apparently are now well along the road to some form of recovery. That is great, but let us not forget that it was this government that bungled the deal in the first place, and it should bear that responsibility. I can well understand the feeling of some of the provincial boards and provincial governments in respect of CEMA and, more particularly, the National Farm Products Marketing Council. It is made up of political appointees, people who are appointed to that council more for their knowledge of the ins and outs of the political halls of this country than for what they know about agricultural production". Hear, hear! "Oh gosh, fellows, I couldn't do anything about it. That is absolutely ridiculous. First of all the council has the general supervisory power of any national marketing agency. Who appoints the council? The federal government appoints its members on the recommendation of the minister. Secondly, the council which supervises the national agency is responsible to the minister. Who provides the credit for the national agency? It is provided under a letter of comfort signed by the present Minister of Agriculture. If he has no control over that council, if he has no control over CEMA, then what in the world is he doing signing a letter of comfort which provided the basic credit for the agency itself? Certainly he has control. If he has no control, why is he now going to take the credit for cleaning up the mess? Of course he has control. The council is responsible to the minister, the council advises the minister, the council reports to the minister, and the council has the general regulatory supervision over the national farm marketing agencies. The minister did not even take the trouble or time to find out if the proper statistics were being formulated by CEMA. Surely to goodness somewhere along the line some of the taint of this mess must rub off on the minister. The whole reason for a national egg marketing agency must be found in the problem that the egg producers and the provincial boards have been having in respect of interprovincial and international trade. If that power exists, as it can only exist in the federal government, then surely the minister must bear the responsibility-- Order please. There being an agreement that speeches cannot be extended beyond 15 minutes, I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. May I merely complete my sentence, Madam Speaker? No. There being no agreement, I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to continue. Madam Speaker, as the House knows, I was a member of the special committee, and this debate enables me to place on the record of the House my views on the committee's final report. The evidence indicated clearly that in spite of this direction from parliament, both the Farm Products Marketing Council and CEMA failed to give sufficient regard to the interests of consumers in national egg marketing. Both the council and CEMA are composed entirely of producer representatives, or of people closely linked with the producer interest. On the whole the final report has a number of useful recommendations. If implemented they can do much to bring about needed improvements in the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the national egg marketing system and the National Farm Products Marketing Council. In fact, during the past two months there have been disturbing signs of the kind of "business as usual" which originally made the appointment of the special committee necessary. I am referring to the press reports of a few weeks ago alleging a sudden appearance and subsequent disapperance of a new surplus of 40 million eggs. This matter is important enough for Canadians generally to have expected some announcement by the government of its decision for remedial action before the commencement of today's debate. It was my hope that this debate would hasten the kind of action required. I have just said that the final report of the committee on the whole contains a number of useful recommendations. However, I do not believe that it deals sufficiently with the question of how the consumer interest can best be recognized and protected in the operations of CEMA and national egg marketing. The report recommends that CEMA should have a stronger consultative committee on which consumers would be represented, and that two additional members be appointed to the CEMA board by the governor in council. However, it is clear that the consultative committee would be able to do no more than be informed by and express its views to the governing board of CEMA. Also, the report says nothing about who the two additional federal appointees should be. Since consumers are vitally concerned with and affected by decisions on the supply and price of eggs, it is essential that they be able to take part in the actual decision making process of CEMA itself. It is not sufficient to achieve this purpose for there to be a consumer representative on the National Farm Products Marketing Council alone. The government announced early in October that such a person and two additional non producers would be appointed to the council. However, these appointments have not yet been announced before today, a delay of almost five months. Also, it should be a matter of concern for all those who wish to strenghten and protect the interests of Canadians as consumers that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) also told the Special committee when he appeared before it that he was "not advocating a consumer representative" on the board of CEMA itself. Instead, he said that he wanted a federal official to be appointed, and what he appeared to have in mind was that this official should come from the Department of Agriculture. Shame! When parliament passed the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, acting on behalf of all the people of Canada, it game CEMA a form of monopoly power. At the same time parliament specifically said that neither CEMA nor any producers dealing with it would be subject to the Combines Act. It is essential, therefore, that the monopoly power of CEMA be exercised and be seen to be exercised in the total public interest. The concept of orderly marketing of agricultural products in Canada according to parliament rests on two foundations; one is the interest of the producer; the other is the interest of the consumer. In my view, the total public interest cannot be protected in the way that I have mentioned if only the producer side is involved in decision making. The consumer side must be involved for this purpose as well. I therefore want to put on the record of parliament some of my views as to what would be appropriate action to bring this about. First, for an interim period sufficiently long to ensure that the recommendations in the report to improve the management and operations of CEMA, the council and the egg marketing plan have gone into effect, CEMA should be administered by a five member executive committee much as recommended by the provincial ministers of agriculture. We're with you. To the extent that this committee would be composed of federal officials, they should not all come from the Department of Agriculture. Instead, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and possibly the Treasury Board should be represented as well. If the committee is to be composed of people from the private sector, some of its members should be connected with the consumer interest. Second, after the interim period mentioned has elapsed, there should be a number of consumer representatives appointed to the permanent board of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency by the government. The federal government appears to have the power to do this under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. Arguments to the special committee, by the present management of CEMA and other producer representatives, that having consumer representatives on the board would be divisive indicate clearly that producer representatives themselves do not believe that they are likely to be able to give due regard to the consumer interest in ways consumers would consider acceptable. Third, the council should be restructured so that it would become a body clearly authorized to hear appeals from decisions of CEMA and other marketing agencies set up under the act from anyone -- producer, processor or consumer -- affected by these decisions. Finally, such reports and advice from the council on the operation of agencies set up under the act should be submitted to and considered by not only the Minister of Agriculture, but also by an inter ministerial committee made up of that minister, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chrétien). They should all share responsibility for the operations of the Farm Products Markteting Agencies Act rather than have it left entirely in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture as it is at present. The issue of ministerial responsibility is one of the difficult and sensitive areas touched on by the committee report. A reading of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act as a whole conveys the view that parliament in passing the act certainly did have in mind that the Minister of Agriculture would be responsible for the over-all administration and application for the act, including some meaningful degree of responsibility for the agencies created under its authority. The act contains a number of indications of this, but one of the clearest of them is section 6 (1)(a) which says that the duties of the Farm Products Marketing Council are, and I quote: ... to advise the minister on all matters relating to the establishment and operation of agencies under this act. One could well argue that parliament would hardly have been likely to have directed the council to advise the Minister of Agriculture in this way unless parliament wished to impose on the minister some degree of direct responsibility with respect to both the establishment and operation of marketing agencies created by cabinet under the authority of the act. One can ask therefore why the final report of the committee found a lesser degree of responsibility with respect to CEMA on the part of the Minister of Agriculture than the minister has, himself, finally been willing to agree that he holds. He did admit to the committee, in the course of his second appearance before it, that he "possibly had some responsibility" for what he described as being only a "minor catastrophe." On Wednesday, January 28, the minister said that he would take drastic action if CEMA did not reform itself. He would not be able to do this if he did not have more responsibility for CEMA than the final committee report found that the Minister of Agriculture had. One could also ask why the committee found less responsibility for action on the part of the Minister of Agriculture in this matter than the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That minister in his release of September 6, 1974, and in particular in a television interview on the C.B.C. on that date, clearly expressed his view that, in effect the Minister of Agriculture had responsibility for the operations of CEMA and should, therefore, take action to cure its problems. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs confirmed he made these statements and stood by them when he himself appeared before the committee. The committee's final report in its findings on ministerial responsibility clashes with and rejects the views about it held by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This, together with his unwillingness last November to advocate consumer representatives for the CEMA board, suggests that the result of his confrontation with the Minister of Agriculture over egg marketing early last September was certainly not a victory for the consumer point of view. It is true that provincial governments and provincial egg marketing agencies were involved in the negotiations that worked out the terms of the egg marketing plan as well as its later implementation. However, marketing agencies under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act are created by the federal governor in council, that is, by the cabinet by proclamation, as are the marketing plans these agencies implement. In other words they come into being because the cabinet exercises authority delegated to it by the parliament of Canada in the act. They would not come into being without this cabinet action being taken. The act also provides that the cabinet can amend the terms of any marketing plan, or withdraw any powers it had earlier given to any agency which was created under the act. One should note that the act does not say that the only thing the cabinet can do if it is not satisfied with the operations of an agency is simply to terminate it by withdrawing all of its powers all at once. Parliament instead gave the cabinet the authority to operate flexibly, to amend individual agency powers if it wished to do so. The act does not say there is any necessity for any provincial concurrence or consent before any of the steps I have mentioned are taken. In my view the evidence presented to the special committee has confirmed the findings of the Food Prices Review Board that the manner of operation of CEMA did not give due regard to the consumer interest. It confirmed the board's findings that the intervention price was set so high as to both encourage overproduction and, at the same time, inhibit purchases of eggs by consumers. It also confirmed the board's findings that the cost of production formula on which the intervention price of eggs was based was neither realistic nor adequate for that purpose. It should be noted that the lack of adequate planning that took place before CEMA began its operations, and the faulty administration that marked its operations once they were under way, all came about when the decision making and management in this regard were entirely in the hands of producers. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that I believe that no more marketing agencies should be created by the federal government under the Act unless it is firmly established that the plans and systems of administration for them are such that the mistakes and mismanagement associated with CEMA to date will not occur again. The destruction of 29 million eggs is bad enough by itself, but what is equally troubling about it is what it demonstrates about the flaws in CEMA and its administration to the detriment of both producers and consumers, and the flaws that could develop when other marketing agencies are created under the act. The difficulties of CEMA provide a powerful lesson, one which unfortunately had to be learned through a bitter experience so costly to both producer and consumer. Let us hope that this lesson has come early enough in efforts to develop national supply management programs so that with appropriate federal government action the mistakes and mismanagement connected with CEMA will not be repeated. If this is the case, the interests of all Canadians, whether producers or consumers, and thereby the total public interest, will in future be more fully and properly served, and the work of the special committee will be proven to have been greatly worth while. Hear, hear! Hear, hear! Madam Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that, if it could be shown, many more were with me in spirit. Hear, hear! They don't need spirit, they need guts. Madam Speaker, the question has been very thoroughly covered already and anybody who wishes to make further remarks on this debate makes them with the fear of being repetitious. However, there are a few things which I think have not been said. I am in sympathy with the farmers who decided they were not particularly anxious to see a representative of the Consumers' Association of Canada on their board. You do not find a president of General Motors as a member of the United Auto Workers. You do not find a farmer on the board of directors of a chartered accountants' association of Canada, you do not find a farmer on the board of directors that charts the course of the legal associations, the medical associations or nursing associations of this country. All of these people need food, however, and farmers need their services, yet they have never been invited to participate in the professional associations of any group in this or any other country. While I agree in principle with a great deal of what has been said, I challenge hon. members and their professions to invite farmers to participate in the direction of those professions. When that happens I am sure farmers will reciprocate, and welcome consumers on their governing body. All the various forms of information should be available to the public. All the public notices that the board has requested should be available to consumers, and consumers should know the basic cost of production. Farmers are entitled to this information but they could not get it from their own board, from the farm marketing council, from the minister or any other source. Like everybody else, farmers and consumers are entitled to the information. What is the future of this board, Madam Speaker? The principle of national control of production of any commodity was precipitated by the chicken and egg war which, in turn, was precipitated by the policies of an urban oriented government, a government which had absolutely no concept of farm production or adequate supply of food. It encouraged production here and discouraged production there, until the Canadian agricultural picture became distorted. An area capable of producing grain found itself producing pigs and poultry by virtue of a federal subsidy which was contributed to by provincial subsidy -- all financed by public money. Instead of grain pouring out of the west it was flying out in the form of birds, or it was shipped out in the form of eggs, because of a total lack of perception of what would happen if production of a particular commodity was increased by 2 per cent. In any agricultural commodity on the North American continent -- and virtually anywhere in the world -- when a surplus of less than 1 per cent appears on the market, that market may plummet overnight. This was the knowledge that the urban cabinet did not like. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could not understand it, and allowed the government virtually to annihilate agriculture from coast to coast under the misapprehension that, if he satisfied the westerners by getting rid of their grain, his government and Ottawa would seem like Utopia to them. If we had paid attention to fundamentals we should not have the egg producers on our backs. This is the sort of attitude which precipitated the call for orderly marketing. The call for agricultural production controls resulted from the absolute abandonment of responsibility for agriculture -- and I cannot blame the minister, as he inherited the situation -- on the part of the Trudeau government; it has neglected its responsibility ever since coming to office. Government policies brought us to the catastrophic position in which, for six years, there was a drastic decline in the potato industry of this country. The government of Canada neglected the country's potato growers. The minister's efforts to help were thwarted. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and I were thwarted as we pleaded on behalf of the industry in our respective provinces. We wanted the assistance which was so necessary for healthy agriculture, and a healthy agricultural industry is essential if food is to be available at reasonable cost. CEMA was made necessary because of the workings of an urban-oriented cabinet. When farmers are mentioned, cabinet ministers either leave their seats or laugh. They know little of agriculture. Policies which allowed the importation of food duty free were detrimental to Canadian agriculture. In the end the government introduced that pernicious bill which allowed CEMA to be created. Let me be clear on one point -- farmers wanted the agency. As things now stand, the farmers have to have it; and it has to work. Let there be no misunderstanding. So I say to the minister that the agency had better work, or else. Anomalies must be corrected. The egg producing industries of our smaller provinces cannot compete with the egg producing industries of richer provinces such as Ontario and Quebec. If the federal government wants to help agricultural producers, and egg producers, it had better make certain that its policies apply from coast to coast in a fair way. Let us look at the history of the matter we are considering. In early 1973 the council was advised by people in the know, people who know the egg business, that the egg marketing concept was not going to work. How true. In late 1973 poultrymen who had studied poultry industry statistics as well as Department of Agriculture statistics, and figures released by Statistics Canada, said that the controls exercised by CEMA were not going to work, and there was trouble ahead. The statistics kept piling up, until the climax came when 28 million eggs were reported as spoiled. Only heaven knows how many more were spoiled. Records have not been kept of total spoilages. Not even the minister may know how many were spoiled. The CEMA people were very vague about total figures. They did not know where all eggs were stored and how many were involved in spoilage. I do not suppose anyone really knows the figure. Certainly the auditors do not. Without proof, they refused to certify that more than a certain number had been spoiled. When this matter came to the minister's attention he should have called the appropriate federal and provincial authorities together and told them to sort out the mess. In any event the situation deteriorated, the number of spoilages grew larger and larger and, finally, the pressure of public opinion forced the government to act. What is happening? According to statistics, a large number of pullets in various provinces are now getting ready to lay eggs. Some provinces may decide to go their own way and produce eggs at whatever rate seems appropriate to them. This is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture and the government of Canada to handle. I hope, for the sake of the producer and the consumer, that the minister can control all ten provinces, not just nine. This control is necessary for the sake of everyone. Madam Speaker, I thank you for having given me the floor. Unfortunately, the hon. member across the way has left me very little time, barely 45 or 65 seconds, to participate in the debate. Several members, from both sides of the House, would have liked to take part in it, I believe. Though I have very little time, I should still like to emphasize one point which was raised a while ago by one of the previous speakers, and that is in part the role played by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the egg question. Members have suggested that the Minister of Agriculture should have intervened unilaterally and imposed recommendations to the Egg Marketing Agency. As far as I am concerned, I feel that this is an unusual way of looking at federal-provincial relations in this country. To think that a federal minister should interfere with a federal-provincial agreement, signed by all the Ministers of Agriculture in Canada, strikes me as pure arrogance. Had that occurred, such a unilateral intervention on the part of the Minister of Agriculture would have been denounced. Quite the contrary, in that case he did what he had to do: he met and consulted with his provincial colleagues in July and November of that year, and they agreed on a plan of action to try and put some order in the house. And finally it is very important to show that that marketing agency can work to meet the need of both consumers and farmers in Canada. I think for my part that underlying the committee report was the fact that it recognized the true role the marketing agency must play within the Canadian economy. How else can we make sure farmers of this country have adequate incomes so they will continue to produce the kind of quality commodities we are used to receiving in Canada? Professor Ford who appeared before the committee had no other mechanism whatever to suggest to replace the marketing agency. So, instead of looking at false problems the committee made recommendations. It determined who was responsible for the agency's problems. It submitted certain findings but agreed that in the final analysis the Minister of Agriculture did what he had to do. Before attacking the Minister of Agriculture it is worth noting that no recommendations were ever made in that regard before the committee but they rather preferred to wait to do so in this House. No attempt was made to convince the committee -- as they should have done as members -- of what was suggested here tonight in this House. A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved. Madam Speaker, on February 11 the titular Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) misled the House. This is the background. In a budget speech dated November 18, 1974, delivered by the titular minister, but apparently not solely prepared by him, it is stated that indexing will reduce the tax liability of Canadian taxpayers by $950 million in 1975. On February 10 of this year the same minister stated, as reported at page 3067 of Hansard that taxpayers would save $750 million as a result of indexing in the 1975 taxation year. The following day, as recorded at page 3101 of Hansard, I asked the minister: Would the minister indicate which figure is correct, the one he gave us yesterday or the one he gave us on November 18? The minister replied: This is a great game of selective statistics again advanced by my hon. friend... One figure applies to the calendar year, and the other applies to the fiscal year. On February 12 I asked the minister to supply the House with the proper figures for relevant years on a fiscal and calendar year basis. He replied he would look into it. The next day, again under questioning, the minister said, and I quote: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member stated yesterday that in my November 18 budget speech I indicated that the reduction in personal income tax liability in 1975, as a result of indexing, would be $950 million, while on Monday I indicated that the reduction would be $750 million. That is how the question came up. The hon. member asked which figure is correct. In response I indicated that one figure was for the calendar year and another for the fiscal year. In so doing I misunderstood the question and perhaps misled hon. members. I ought to have responded that both figures are correct. The $950 million reference in the budget speech was the total tax saving attributable to people in 1975 because of indexing; the $750 million figure is part of that $950 million which is attributable to the federal treasury. The other $200 million is attributable to provincial treasuries. After admitting he misled hon. members, this sham minister, attempting to rationalize his mistake, only demonstrated the cleavage that exists between the Prime Minister's "Group of Seven" and his denuded Ministry of Finance. Mr. T. A. Wilson, a member of the "Group of Seven", wrote in an article published this month, and I quote: The second round of tax indexing in January involves a reduction in federal and provincial taxes of $1,000 and $250 million respectively... Without the indexing of taxes therefore, federal and provincial revenues would be some $1,250 million higher in 1975, and the effects on the net budget position would be even larger. The additional fiscal drag which inflation would have generated with a tax-transfer system without indexing would have been sufficient to plunge the economy into recession in early 1975 unless offset by discretionary fiscal changes. Obviously the minister is a little embarrassed to maintain still that he is being frank with this parliament. The fact is that he has never been frank with this parliament. Nor has he been frank with the Canadian people. We deserve a fuller explanation concerning the minister's statement in connection with indexing. At the time of my leader's speech, the minister so denounced the concept of indexing that it is only fair that he now state the accurate figures as to how much Canadians are benefitting at the present time as a result of indexing in the Canadian income tax field. I hope we will get a full and proper explanation of this unfortunate incident, which is only one in a series of incidents where this House has been misled by this minister. On February 11, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) stated that in the November 18 budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated that the reduction in personal tax liabilities in 1975 as a result of indexing would be $950 million, while on Monday, February 10, he said that the reduction would be $750 million. The hon. member asked which figure was correct. In responding, the minister explained that one of the figures applied to the calendar year and the other to the fiscal year. It is indeed true that the reduction of personal income tax liabilities in fiscal year 1975-76 will exceed that for calendar year 1975. This is so because a new and higher indexing factor will automatically take effect on January 1, 1976, and will apply for the last three months of the fiscal year. In his budget speech the minister stated: Indexing will reduce the tax liability of Canadian taxpayers by $950 million in 1975. In saying this he was referring to the total savings to taxpayers -- savings resulting from the reduction of both federal and provincial tax liabilities. In his statement to the House on February 10 the minister was referring to the reduction in federal revenues due to the tax cuts set out in the bill, and in that context he gave the 1975 estimated cost of indexing to the federal treasury alone. Both figures given by the minister are correct. The $950 million refer to the total reduction in personal income taxes, federal and provincial, and the $750 million to the cost to the federal treasury only. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, February 13, I asked questions about railway pensions which I directed first to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and then to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). In this area of railway pensions there are of course many angles, and I am concerned about all of them, but during this late show tonight I am concentrating on just one point. It is the point I presented as clearly as I could to the Minister of Transport last Thursday. My question -- and it is my only question tonight -- related to the escalation or the indexing of the pensions of retired Canadian National employees. I am not tonight talking about the need to revamp the Canadian National pension plan to make provision for the escalation CN workers presently employed may enjoy when they retire. I am talking only about former CN workers already retired and now drawing their pensions. For many years pensions in this category were of a fixed amount with no escalation at all. After a while we got the CN to come through with an escalation of 2 per cent per year. This was done for several years. When the ceiling was taken off other plans which came within the responsibility of the federal government, we put pressure on the CN to escalate pensions in accordance with the actual rise in the cost of living. Last year the CN at least broke through the 2 per cent ceiling and allowed an escalation of 4 per cent which, though not good enough, was better than 2 per cent. My question tonight is: when is this year's escalation coming through and, when it does, will the amount be at least the full amount of the rise in the cost of living? We can argue about what that percentage should be, but other pension plans that are under the aegis of the government have this year had escalations of 10 per cent or more. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I submit that the retired employees of the Canadian National should now be getting the 1975 escalation of their pensions, and that the amount of that escalation should be at least 10 per cent. As I said the other day during the question period, I am asking for this pending the tabling of the Hall report. I hope my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Guay) who will be replying tonight for some other parliamentary secretary, will not tell me -- indeed, I am sure he would not want to say it -- that we will have to wait until Canadian National gets the Hall report. That may be many months down the road. The time for an annual escalation of pensions is at the beginning of the year, and Canadian National pensioners have the right to that escalation now. The other answer that the Minister of Transport gave me the other day, and which I found a bit annoying, was one he has given me on other occasions, namely, that this is the subject of collective bargaining. The pension plan of the Canadian National Railways, in so far as it will affect those still working, when they retire, is now on the collective bargaining table. But escalating or making any changes in the pensions of those already retired is not on the collective bargaining table. Those people have a representative on the pension board, but there is no collective bargaining on behalf of those already retired. They will get an escalation under the present arrangements, depending on what may come out of the Hall report, only if Canadian National comes through with an escalation. I know that we are told frequently that we have to let the Canadian National Railways make its own decisions. But the fact of the matter is that pressure by the government, pressure from the floor of this parliament by members like my good friend, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), my good friend from St. Boniface, and their good friend from Winnipeg North Centre, has had an effect in the past. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will be able to tell me tonight that the government will talk turkey to Canadian National, and will tell the CNR that this matter cannot wait any longer, that it cannot wait for the next round of collective bargaining by those still working, that it cannot wait for the Hall report. These retired employees of CNR, many of them in our constituencies, deserve an escalation in 1975 of at least 10 per cent, and they deserve it now without any further delay. The parliamentary secretary can make a good name for himself in St. Boniface and throughout greater Winnipeg tomorrow if he will give the answer tonight, that this escalation is coming soon. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity, in the very short time available, to discuss this very important matter with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As he is probably aware, there are many CN pensioners in my constituency, and the problem of coping with the ever-increasing cost of living is a major concern for all pensioners as well as for us. In the past the increase of pensions for retirees has been averaging about 2 per cent per year, and this increase has been made on a sporadic basis. There has never been any specific timing for this increase, and I must agree that this situation has created some problems and hardships for the pensioners referred to by the hon. member. I know the hon. member probably does not want me to talk about the Hall inquiry commission, but the fact remains that the Hall inquiry commission was set up in May, 1974, by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), to make proposals with regard to pensions. Hearing began on November 28, 1974, and he has been holding hearings ever since all over the country. As the hon. member is probably aware, the unions have proposed to the Hall inquiry commission that the pension plan provide for automatic adjustment in accordance with the increases in the cost of living. But since the hearings are ongoing and Mr. Hall has yet to make his recommendations, we will have to await them to determine what action will be necessary and what action should be taken by the government. There is no doubt that the railway will give consideration to this important matter as soon as it has received the Hall report and the recommendations of the government in this regard. I wholeheartedly agree with this because not only do I sympathize with pensioners but I believe that this is something they rightly deserve. And they deserve it now. Madam Speaker, last Friday, as well as this afternoon during question period, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chrétien) whether or not his department, or in fact any government department, has considered or is considering the possibility of single sector bargaining, in other words, of having a single public sector as a whole dealing with the government, rather than the fragmentary way in which the general labour and trades group, for example, has done, thus adversely affecting and harming so many different sectors of our economy. It is puzzling to see the government continue to accept this method of bargaining, knowing full well that the fragmentation effects of a strike such as the one with which we are faced today are widespread, to such an extent that they alone can be damaging to the extent of millions of dollars to our economy in a dozen or so different sectors. I believe, however, that the majority of Canadians are fed up with the increasing inconvenience and economic impairment to the individual and the community alike of walkouts, legal and illegal, in essential services in this country. Let us remember that two-thirds of the Canadian taxpayers do not belong to any union and therefore are not protected by the gutless permissiveness of governments, or do not belong on the government payroll with armour-plated job security. I would think that a great many of these taxpayers are against all walkouts and strikes, legal or illegal. That would surely bring about some very rough confrontations. Surely in view of the number of strikes with which Canadians were faced last year, and the ever increasing labour unrest and militancy threatening public interest, some immediate alternative ways and means must be adopted before our economy deteriorates any further. I believe that there is an urgent need for federal legislation requiring union groups in a single public service sector to bargain with the Treasury Board on a joint basis only for agreements of perhaps not less than two or three years' duration. This suggestion is not too different from a recent recommendation made to the cabinet in a memorandum regarding labour relations in Canada put forward by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). I happen to have this memorandum which asks the cabinet to consider establishing a Canadian labour relations council with the purpose of finding solutions on a continuing basis to different problems of practice and perception in labour relations, including the problems of fragmentation in a union, a recommendation with which I am sure the public would agree. It is fine to make the suggestion such as the one which was contained in the reply of the President of the Treasury Board to my question, that this sort of recommendation should be made to the joint committee presently studying the Finkelman report dealing with labour relations. But, unfortunately, before the dust settles after the completion of those committee hearings, our economy will have suffered the loss of millions of working man days as a result of walk-outs and strikes, and thus hundreds of millions of dollars, partially due to the fragmentary way of bargaining which this government seems to have adopted as a way of life. The result of bargaining with a single public service sector as a whole, in the simplest terms would be assurance to the tax paying public that each essential service sector would be strike free except for the possibility of a walk-out every two or three years or so. By a wide margin the majority of public service strikes are at the federal level. It was a Liberal government which gave federal public servants the right to strike back in 1967. We have seen this right abused at the expense of the taxpayer and so, quite fittingly, it is on the Liberal government, with its new strong majority mandate, that public responsibility rests to take the initiative to restore some balance between the right of the taxpayer to uninterrupted essential services and the right of the federal unions to withdraw them. For example, if one happens to be grounded by an air service strike at the time of a business or holiday trip, the most frustrating and maddening aspect of the situation is the fragmentation of union power in shutting it down at different times. Most devasting also for management, and damaging to the economy, is the same idiotic spectacle of airline service, for example, having just been restored after a strike in one sector of the industry being closed down again by another union group walking out. At different times in recent years air service has been grounded by striking firemen, runway maintenance workers, air traffic controllers, stewards, baggage handlers, ticket agents and other service workers. The railways, shipping, port services and the post office run the same risk of disruption by fragmentation of union bargaining. Over the last three or four years the record of labour disruption of essential services, and the cost in money and inconvenience to the public make it plain to see that sooner or later a reasonable balance-- Order, please. Madam Speaker, I have just one paragraph to finish. The general rule is that speeches at this time cannot extend beyond seven minutes. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen). The strike of GLT employees of the public service of Canada is, of course, having an unfortunate effect on different sectors of the economy. Any strike of this dimension has that effect. I trust it will be shortlived. The employer is still prepared through mediation or any other suitable medium to strive for a settlement, and I hope that the Public Service Alliance is similarly motivated. The matter of single public sectors is not something which can be decided in a hurry. There is every indication that to adopt this approach to collective bargaining would definitely result in fragmentation of union strength and the creation of far too many bargaining units. We have 80 bargaining units now, and it is possibly more in the public interest for the number to be reduced eventually, rather than increased. Union power is certainly not fragmented by having one GLT bargaining unit. In any event the number and nature of bargaining units are a matter for decision by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and if the hon. member has any suggestions to make regarding changes to the Public Service Staff Relations Act he will doubtless have an opportunity to pass them on to the parliamentary committee now studying the Finkelman report. The House met at 2 p.m. Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion amongst the House leaders about the desirability of proceeding as quickly as possible with Bill C-48 to amend the Railway Act. In order to expedite consideration of that bill, it has been agreed -- and I hope it will be made an order of the House -- that tonight at 9.30 the committee of the whole will rise and report progress on Bill C-49, the House will then take under consideration Bill C-48 and the debate thereon will be continued at this sitting until the conclusion of second reading. Mr. Speaker, as the government House Leader said, there have been discussions and the proposal is agreeable to us. We want to remind the hon. gentleman that the opposition is always prepared to assist the government in proceeding with its legislative program, under proper circumstances. Hear, hear! Agreed. Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to this arrangement, but we do trust that the debate will not extend too far beyond 10 o'clock this evening. Is it agreed by all members that it be ordered that the House proceed at 9.30 p.m. along the lines and the terms outlined by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp)? It is so ordered. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table copies of the document "Opportunities for Choice", in both official languages, that was agreed upon at the federal-provincial ministers' meeting last December. Joe Guay said no. I said yes. Mr. Speaker, this bill will require contractors tendering for government business to file a statement describing in detail, as set out in the bill, the status of women working in their firms. This will create certain competition among firms to improve the status of women and produce higher standards than are obtained by laws which set minimum requirements. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would I be in order if I asked the hon. member if the bill will cover that great body of contracts for which there are no tenders? Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. No one in this House would dispute the right and propriety of the government and the National Energy Board to regulate export of natural resources, particularly gas to the United States. Before responding, may I welcome back the hon. member from his illness. I hopw we will see a lot more of him. Hear, hear! With regard to the report today that there have been allegations of statements by State Department spokesmen of retaliation against Canada if there is a reduction in gas exports, I will preface my remarks by reminding the House that the National Energy Board is engaged in a hearing on precisely this question. In any response I make, I want to avoid in any way prejudicing that hearing. Having said this, I can assure the hon. member that in my meetings to date with senior members of administration and of the Congress I received no such representations. There has been concern about gas supplies but no suggestion of retaliation and no official representations to the Government of Canada in this regard. I think I can say to the House that on the basis of our good friendship with the United States over the years we shall do our best to assist them in any such problem, but perhaps this willingness to be of assistance might be diminished rather than increased by any suggestion of retaliation. Is it the position taken by the government that the long term contracts which have been signed with respect to natural gas could be the subject of renegotiation? I should probably not give a legal opinion, but the terms under which the gas is exported from Canada are under the National Energy Board Act, and are that the gas should be surplus to the reasonable requirements of the Canadian market and the National Energy Board Act does provide for the amendment of any such permit. This would have the effect of amending the contract by force majeure. In the course of the meetings which are going on at the present time, has the question of long term contracts for natural gas been an important factor? United States officials have been aware of the extensive board hearings which have been going on and have expressed, in general terms, concern about the supply of gas to the U.S. market, but of course they recognize that the question remains hypothetical until the board has made its determination and the government in turn has made its decision. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the same general subject. If this prediction is unchanged, is it now the policy of the government to accept this situation and the very large consequent deficit in our balance of payments which will follow, or does the government have any plans to offset this effect? As the hon. gentleman knows there is a level now set of 800,000 barrels a day being exported to the United States. I suggested at the time of publishing the Energy Board report that the government would consider moving down to a level of 650,000 barrels a day as of July 1, subject to consultation with the provinces. There has been discussion at the official level with the provinces. Because of its fiscal consequences, this will be a matter to come before the first ministers in April. It will depend very much on the outcome of that meeting whether the level remains at 800,000 barrels a day. However, subject to any sudden or unforeseen increase in imports, I would say the account should remain roughly in balance. May I ask, then, what is the intention of the government, subject to consultation with the provinces? Is it to seek the approval of the provincial governments to reduce exports to some 650,000 barrels a day by mid-1975? Is this still the policy as it seemed to be when the minister last spoke on the subject? Having set the figure of 650,000 barrels a day, naturally, we will discuss it with the two provinces most affected before making a final decision. Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the serious effects of the continuing strike of public service employees, I wonder whether the negotiations are continuing and, if so, whether there is a basis to the claim of the employees that most of those who were receiving wages when collective bargaining started a few years ago comparative to the wages paid for similar jobs in private industry are now being offered in many cases an increase which will bring their pay to not much more than half the pay of employees in private industry. My answer to the first part of the question is that I hope the parties will meet again tomorrow. We are willing to sit down at the negotiating table and try to come to an agreement. As for the second part of the question, I do not think the allegation is true. I wonder whether the minister, if the negotiations are not brought to an amicable conclusion in the next few days, would make a statement in the House or table for members of the House the analysis done by the pay research bureau comparing wages paid to these employees with wages paid to workers doing similar work in the private sector of the economy. Mr. Speaker, I think that it would not be advisable to start negotiations in the House of Commons. I think that those people have the right to strike, a right which has been given to them by the parliament of Canada and which we respect. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Following a decision made by a Boston jury that Dr. Kenneth Edelin is guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the destruction of a foetus during a legal abortion, does the government intend to use this verdict to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code as concerns abortion in our country? Mr. Speaker, may I take notice of that question. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following his recent statement that efforts should be undertaken in order to conserve energy, has the minister had discussions with the automotive industry to recall certain vehicles that do not meet a certain standard of performance, such as for example, half ton pick-ups which use gasoline at the rate of seven or eight miles to a gallon, which is not a good performance? Personally I have not, although my officials have been and are in the process of contacting industry with regard to ways in which industry can be of assistance. With regard to the automobile industry in particular, given the parallel goals that the United States administration has had over a period of years, we would seek to direct the auto industry to less wasteful means of propulsion systems in automobiles, thereby significantly conserving energy. May I ask the minister whether discussions are also being held with the automotive industry to encourage them to design anti-pollution devices in such a way that they may be turned off, particularly in rural areas where pollution is not a problem, because these devices are great gas consumers. Mr. Speaker, we recognize the problem and in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, we will be pursuing that question as well. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board with respect to the negotiations that are going on. I wonder whether or not he accepts the acting Prime Minister's statement of policy yesterday, in as much as he rejected the comment of the Minister of Finance with respect to the COLA clause, and whether the inclusion of the COLA clause in the negotiations is acceptable to the Treasury Board. Order please. I do not want to restrict the hon. member's right to ask a question, but I have great difficulty in relating that question as a supplementary one to the question on gas consumption. Mr. Speaker, I did try to catch your eye with respect to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Mine was supplementary to his. Mr. Speaker, I will just reply by saying that it would not be advisable to negotiate in the House of Commons. Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport and it relates to the St. Lawrence Seaway. I am well aware, as is the minister, that many telegrams and letters have been received in respect of the 10 per cent increase in tolls and the need for a public hearing. Has the minister received representations to that effect and what was his answer? Yes, Mr. Speaker, I receive representations and the department is now working on a paper for cabinet in order to see whether we can refinance the whole seaway, and I will have to discuss this matter with the Minister of Finance. Is that a further policy statement? In other words, will be attempt to get all the input possible on the economic factors involved before the cabinet makes a decision on this extremely important matter? Like Pickering. Yes, it was very useful. Oh, oh! When the hon. member says that we are acting unilaterally, perhaps I should point out that the United States did the same thing. One day they decided to maintain their tolls in order to reduce the debt, and they did that without consulting us. We were just informed of it. We may have to do the same thing, or find some other formula. As to whether it is necessary to have a public inquiry, I submit that if we can avoid it we will. Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the minister realizes that this is an extremely important and sensitive matter which he should not be treating lightly, and I do not think that he is, but I should like to ask one final question in order to get some assurance from the minister in respect of the direction he is going. Can he assure the House at this time that when he eventually makes a refinancing decision in respect of the St. Lawrence seaway he will make every effort to prevent increases in tolls which would seriously affect our export trade, Canada-U.S. relations and primary and secondary industries in Canada? Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this is something I will have in mind from the very beginning to the end. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Food Prices Review Board investigation in the meat industry did not reveal any significant facts, with the chairman stating that the current inquiry into beef marketing will accomplish very little, and in view of the statement of the chairman of the Quebec police commission that organized crime has even cost the teenager a little more in respect of the price of a hamburger, will the Minister of Agriculture strengthen the terms of reference of the commission to include the services of the RCMP in order to conduct an in depth investigation? Mr. Speaker, I am sure the commission will use all the people it thinks can help it in carrying out a proper investigation. Mr. Speaker, will the terms of reference provide that witnesses can be issued supboenas and questioned under oath? Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the National Film Board has produced and shown on national CBC a so-called documentary film entitled "Where are you going Company Town", which is a biased, distorted, profane and unfavourable representation of the city of Trail, will the Secretary of State request a national showing of a previously produced unbiased film to be shown to Canadians to at least in part redress the wrong perpetrated on Trail by the CBC and the National Film Board? Mr. Speaker, I will make those representations known to the corporation. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he proposes to do regarding the charges raised by the Food Prices Review Board in its report on the broiler chicken industry to the effect that the price spread between what the producer gets and the retail price cannot be justified? Mr. Speaker, there is no national broiler chicken marketing board. There are provincial marketing boards such as the one here which has its authority vested by the province of Ontario. We do grant them the authority to operate interprovincially. They may be operating in a fashion that some hon. members would question, and if hon. members can give me some real evidence of that other than what Mrs. Plumptre presents I will look into it. Mr. Speaker, I would then ask the minister what he proposes to do about the growing cold storage surplus of broiler chickens in Canada, which I understand has increased from 31 million pounds in September to 34 million pounds today? Perhaps I could also ask the minister whether he intends to pursue his plans to set up a broiler chicken marketing board, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board? Mr. Speaker, the National Farm Products Marketing Council held hearings last year in respect of whether there should be a broiler marketing agency for Canada. Hearings were held and views were expressed. The council then proceeded with a draft agreement, but the agreement has gone no further. I think that is probably because of the inquiry into the national egg marketing agency called CEMA. I am not prepared to go ahead at this time until there is more federal authority, or until more federal authority can be vested in such an agency because I do not see how it could properly be run without it. The fact that there is a surplus of broiler chickens in storage has nothing to do with any national marketing program. These provincial marketing boards run their own systems at the present time. Such a federal or national agency would require a proper supply management program, and that would have to be put into effect before I would sign any agreement that required a federal authority as a signatory. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether, in the absence of a national agreement, he proposes to carry out his responsibilities as the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, in meeting with his provincial counterparts to see whether a plan can be devised to get these chickens out of cold storage to be used as part of our foreign aid program, or put on the market to the advantage of the Canadian consumer? Mr. Speaker, I would say that the poulty producers have a certain cost involved in the production of poultry, and if society as a whole wants to put the poultry on the market or into some foreign aid program, that would be the job of society as a whole. Society as a whole should have the total authority for putting them into foreign aid or on the market. There is no sign of waste. We have investigated the storage facilities in which these broilers are stored at the present time and I am told there is no chance of waste at the present time. I am also told that producers are voluntarily cutting back on production. This is a free wheeling type of operation and there is no real federal jurisdiction or control in respect of production at the present time. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that such a petition has been received. It will of course be studied, as it deserves to be, by the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the vast amount of federal funds committed to the Syncrude project, and considering as well that the cost estimate given to the public and hon. members of the House escalated from $2 billion to $2.9 billion, I wonder if the minister would agree, prior to the government signing a final set of contracts on the project, to the establishment of a special committee of the House to investigate the commitments of the government and all costs related to the Syncrude project with a view to reporting back to this House prior to any signing of final contracts by the government. With relation to the allegations made last week by the hon. member's colleague about a cost escalation, I would advise that the $900 million alleged escalation is made up of a $226 million escalation in the cost of the utility plant, which is not the responsibility of the Syncrude partners but of the government of Alberta; of mortgage financing for housing of $100 million, which again is the responsibility of the province of Alberta; of $500 million interest during construction which, because it is all financed by equity funds, is not relevant; and the sum of approximately $30 million in relation to saline water disposal anticipated in part under the contingency fund already provided for. The estimated costs are still estimated at the level of $2 billion. There will be in the final supplementary estimates coming forward an application for a supplementary estimate of appropriation for this, which would provide an initial forum, at least, where we could have a discussion of the details of the transaction which I personally would welcome. Would the minister inform the House in the current estimate of $2 billion, which he says is still the one helf by the government, whether environmental costs are included. When he answers that would he also consider tabling for hon. members of the House and for the public all of the aspects the Syncrude project which are to be included in the estimates of the government and those cost estimates which will be outside the purview of the commitment of the federal government? Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to make that clear. As I indicated in answer to a previous question, the studies done by the government of Alberta of course are its property rather than that of this government, and if there is to be a tabling, they would have to be translated. We would be glad to put before the House and before the committee the details of the nature of the obligations being assumed by the partnership and that being assumed by the government of Alberta. With regard to environment, as I indicated, there is involved in the $2 billion figure a contingency amount for environmental problems of the kind referred to. I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Due to the fact that by the time the House considers the estimates the agreement will already have been reached and therefore serious consideration of the policy would be too late, is the minister saying that the government does not intend the House to have the opportunity to investigate all aspects of the Syncrude project thoroughly prior to its making a commitment? Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate having some difficulty executing a contract in relation to the Syncrude project without first having the approval of the House for the appropriation to enter into the transaction. Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General of Canada. A policemen congress from the Maritime provinces took place recently where a resolution was adopted recommending the restoration of capital punishment in Canada. Is the minister aware of this resolution, did he receive a copy of it and did he follow it up? No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a copy of the said resolution, although I have read about it in the press. On the other hand, when I was invited to this meeting, I told the organizers that I already had a commitment for that particular day but that I would be willing to meet with representatives or the executive following the meeting to discuss the issues with them, but I have not yet heard from them. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister says he had a previous engagement, but if it had not been the case, can he affirm that he would have attended the congress? I promised to meet representatives from that meeting, or their executive and so far I have not heard from them. If they wish to meet with me, I would be quite willing to do so. Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Solicitor General. Is the Solicitor General aware that last evening 12 newsmen, including cameramen, who had gone to the B.C. penitentiary to get a news story in regard to a hostage being held at that time were invited inside and locked -- penned up, one might even say -- and held incommunicado for over two hours, even half an hour after the hostage had been released? Mr. Speaker, I was only advised by a newsman of this matter after I came into the House this afternoon, and I promised him that I would look into it immediately. Why did they let them out? I might say that I received information this morning about the hostage case, but I was not told about this incident with respect to the press. Mr. Speaker, when the minister makes his report, would he let us know upon whose orders this particular action was taken and also the action that he proposes to take to ensure that this does not happen again and that those responsible will be dealt with appropriately? Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the opinion expressed by the premiers of the Atlantic provinces that Canada's Foreign Investment Review Act is placing restrictions on foreign companies and investment in Atlantic Canada at a time when unemployment in our area is 11 per cent or more and rising, is it the intention of the minister to propose that the controversial second part of this legislation be shelved when he meets with the provincial industry ministers on March 10 and 11? No, Mr. Speaker, but I do intend to meet with those ministers on that occasion to discuss with them the operation and consultative mechanisms set up by my department and with their departments. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. Where is the Prime Minister, what is the matter with him, and is it serious? Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that the hon. gentleman is just as concerned as the rest of us about the health of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the 'flu. I gather that he was very anxious to come into the House today, but his doctor said it would be advisable that he remain home for another day. I will pass on to the Prime Minister the concern of the hon. member. I know that he will appreciate it very much. In view of the fact that at the time of the grain workers strike in the fall of 1974, the Canadian Wheat Board indicated that if the strike lasted for six weeks it would take until mid May, 1975 to fulfill foreign grain commitments, and because there has been at least one other work stoppage, I wonder if the minister is in a position to indicate whether there are any contingency plans to move grain if this current strike persists in view of the very detrimental effect it may have with respect to our foreign commitments. This aspect of the problem does not come under my responsibility, Mr. Speaker. The employees involved have the right to strike. Parliament has given them this right and I believe we must respect it. Of course, any strike creates problems in various sectors of the economy, but Parliament did allow these employees to use this weapon, and I respect this wish. Mr. Speaker, I accept the position the minister takes with respect to the right to strike but in view of the fact that this matter has some serious consequences for the producer in western Canada and across the country, I wonder if he is in a position to indicate whether the government will give consideration to the formation of a public interest disputes commission in order to ensure that Canadian grain producers will not be subject to sales losses as a result of future strikes, slowdowns or work stoppages? Mr. Speaker, I now have no indication that the strike has seriously disrupted the movement of grain to ports, or the shipping of grain to our customers. In any event, I do not see why, when grain is concerned, the right to strike should be withdrawn and other sectors of the economy allowed to use it. The right to strike is either respected or it is not! Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration and concerns the very disturbing circumstances involving one Roosevelt Douglas who is a criminal convicted in the 1969 burning and smashing of the computer at Sir George Williams University. His appeal against deportation was turned down after the minister and the Solicitor General last year signed a rarely used form which indicated that it would be "contrary to the national interest" to allow this professional troublemaker to stay in Canada. Can the acting minister advise why such a person, considered by the court to be a security risk, is still in Canada and last week surfaced to publicly criticize the green paper on immigration? Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister indicate if the government has received any response from the government of the United States of America with reference to the concern registered by the Canadian government over the proposed sale of office furniture to Cuba by the Scarborough based firm of Coles Division of Litton Equipment? It is all settled. That is old news. Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I believe in this particular case a waiver was granted to allow the sale to go forward. I certainly regard it as a positive development in the situation. Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the recent unilateral declaration by Turkish Cypriots of a separate state in Cyprus while negotiations were going on between Turkish and Greek Cypriots, will the government of Canada express its disapproval of this action based as it is on military force and a defiance of the unanimous resolution of the United Nations Security Council on November 1 which called for speedy withdrawal of all foreign armed troops, and the continuation of negotiations with a view to reaching a free and mutually acceptable settlement? Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has learned with concern of the statement by the Turkish Cypriots on that island. We have, as you know, considerable peacekeeping obligations there and for that reason have attempted to avoid taking sides. We have urged the parties to negotiate however, and of course formal negotiations began earlier this year. There can be no doubt that the announcement made by the Turkish Cypriots must be regarded as a serious setback to the success of those negotiations. I might add to my hon. friend that we must note that the Turkish Cypriots have not gone beyond asking for a federated state, and therefore the Canadian policy of supporting the independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus has not been breached by this statement. I do, however, regard it as a serious setback to the success of the negotiations. I believe that now all countries must urge the two parties on the island to resume negotiations, even though this complicating circumstance has intervened. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether the setting up of a separate state entirely outside the negotiations is a preliminary move toward the partition and destruction of the integrity of the Republic of Cyprus? Mr. Speaker, the statement itself does not constitute a request for partition or for an independent state. To that extent, it meets the concern of my hon. friend and to that extent it ought to be greeted with a certain amount of satisfaction. Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary. May I go on with my question, Mr. Speaker? Considering that since last Thursday the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices on Montreal island refuse to answer in English, that employees classified as French unilingual must answer many inquiries made in English and also that those employees have asked to be entitled to the 7 per cent bonus since they must give information in both languages, can the minister now say whether he is willing to comply with the request? Mr. Speaker, the government policy on the bonus for bilingualism does not apply to this category of employees, but to a special category of secretaries, here in the House of Commons and in Ottawa, who receive this bonus. We are not projecting to extend this bonus to other categories of federal public servants. I could not agree to this demand, and I hope the employees concerned will do their duty and answer government customers in both official languages. The hon. member for Victoria. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I shall recognize the hon. member later, but for the moment, the hon. member for Victoria has the floor. The hon. member for Victoria. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister confirm that Canadian Armed Forces bases have been ordered to set up meetings between armed forces personnel and salesmen from Canada Trust Company for the presentation of a registered retirement savings plan and that in remote areas where it is difficult for the Canada Trust salesmen to reach the bases, commanding officers have been ordered to pass on instruction with the sales kits? Mr. Speaker, it is correct to say that Canada Trust is setting up a retirement savings plan for those who may wish to join it, but I cannot confirm or deny the actual arrangements which have been outlined. Mr. Speaker, if the minister will refer to National Defence Headquarters message 071815Z he will see what I am referring to. Does he see nothing wrong with his department's shilling for Canada Trust in the high pressure sales world of registered retirement savings plans? Shame! Mr. Speaker, I think the retirement savings plan will be of benefit to the individuals within the armed forces who participate in it. A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As a message has gone out to all bases clearly saying that Canada Trust alone has been selected by the department to act as trustee, does the minister not consider this an improper position for the department to take? Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the Minister advise the House if he will be accepting the invitation to visit Africa in April, whether he is going under the auspices of the Canadian International Development Agency and whether Paul Gerin-Lajoie will be accompanying the minister on this "fun-in-the-sun" excursion. Mr. Speaker, I have just had a suggestion from one of my hon. friend's colleagues to join the "fun-in-the-sun", so he ought not to be scandalized at the prospect of that happening. I am planning to take a working visit-- Oh, oh! Are you taking your bathing suit? --which I look forward to with a certain amount of trepidation. Are you going to Uganda? I have not decided on my travelling companions, as yet. Orders of the day. Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is related to the fact that I mentioned three times that I would like to ask a supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With your permission, now that I have been recognized I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My supplementary-- Order, please. You have not been here long enough. Order, please. The hon. member must realize that he joins some very impressive company in the House in this regard. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Chair, I think that under standing orders the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is perfectly right when he says that a question of privilege must interrupt all parliamentary proceedings and allow all hon. members to hear that question of privilege. The Chair decides whether there is a question of privilege, but first the right to raise it must be recognized anyhow. With all due respect to the hon. member for Témiscamingue, I shall point out that I tried to explain that it is because of that and of well established precedents that I recognized the hon. member for Saint-Denis on his question of privilege. I suggested that the oral question period go on for the other two members. But had the hon. member for Saint-Denis insisted on raising his question of privilege at that time, I would have heard him, but if he permits me to recognize the other two members to finish the oral question period before he asks his question, the House and the Chair agree. Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council) moved: That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear evidence on and to consider Canadian policy with respect to the question of continuing defence cooperation with the United States and in particular the future of the North American Air Defence agreement (NORAD); and That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear reports from Canadian delegations which have met with delegations from foreign parliaments or attended interparliamentary assemblies. Motion agreed to. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of clause 29. On clause 29. Mr. Chairman, there is a technical amendment to be moved here. I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to be good enough to move this amendment. I move: That clause 29 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out lines 36 to 42 on page 49 and substituting the following: "receivable." (2) Subsections 59(2) to (5) of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor: "(2) There shall be included in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year any amount in respect of (a) a Canadian resource property, (b) a foreign resource property, (c) any property described in paragraph (1.1) (b), (d) any property described in any of subparagraphs 66(15) (c) (i) to (vi) that is not property described in paragraph (1.1) (b), or (e) any property described in any of subparagraphs 66(15) (c) (i) to (vi) if the references therein to "in Canada" were read as references to "outside Canada", that has been deducted as a reserve under subsection 64(1) in computing his income for the immediately preceding taxation year. (2.1) There shall be included in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year any amount that has been deducted as a reserve" (b) by striking out line 9 of the French version on page 49 and substituting the following: "a) d'un avoir minier canadien, ou" (c) by striking out line 43 of the French version on page 50 and substituting the following: "biens visés à l'alinéa (1.1)b), les" Explain. Mr. Chairman, I cannot give a legal view. Hon. members have heard the minister's proposition. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources cannot possibly give an opinion. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could explain the purpose of the amendment. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I think that in English, for the hon. member's information-- Explanatory note (a), the words "in that year" were deleted at line 36 on page 49 since they are not required. Subsection 59(2) has been amended at lines 37 to 39 on page 49 to change the previous reference because of other changes to subsections 59(1) and 59(3). The amendments in subsection 59(2) are only technical and there is no change in policy or application of the section. The words "deducted as a reserve" have been added at line 42 on page 49 to the previous subsection 59(2.1). These words are consistent with other sections in the act where the deduction from income is in the form of a reserve. Appropriately enough, (c), the amendment at line 43, page 50, merely corrects the French translation to correspond with the English. Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to. Clause as amended agreed to. On clause 30. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary can advise me on this matter. I notice a change here, as a result of underlining, as follows: --or as a payment to or under such a plan under which his spouse is the annuitant, as permitted by section 146-- In my ignorance, I ask whether in fact we can start now, in terms of International Women's Year, to bring in an amendment regarding "his or her spouse." Second, I want to know whether in fact this means the spouse is entitled to two deductions. I believe there is something like $4,000 or $4,500 now. Does this mean the husband can be involved with the plan, and if his wife is involved or has the right to be involved with it there is a further reduction amounting to something like $8,000 which would be involved under this section? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would answer my first question regarding "his or her," amending the whole act accordingly, and my second question as to whether there is a double deduction in this regard. There is not a duplication, if that is what the hon. member is worried about. What about my first question? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary does not think it is important. It is with regard to an amendment adding the words "or her" and the whole act being amended accordingly. Mr. Chairman, I believe one of my colleagues in the back bench raised that very point. Under the Interpretation Act "his" does mean "her". If the private member's bill of my colleague is carried, perhaps we will have it the other way around. However, under the Interpretation Act "his" does mean "her". Mr. Chairman, I would like further clarification. Is the parliamentary secretary saying that if you are working and your spouse is not, you can donate $4,000 to your own plan and $4,000 to your wife's plan, or $2,500 and $2,500 if you are on salary? I am advised that one cannot have more than $4,000. If one spouse is not working and the other spouse is, can he or she put in $4,000 for himself and $4,000 for the spouse, amounting to two exemptions? You could take the one $4,000 and put it in for yourself, or you could take the $4,000 and divide it. Why is the government taking this route at all? It appears to me that those able to take advantage of this concession would be the middle class or the wealthy; a person in receipt of an average income would not be able to do so. Why does not the government set aside money to establish, for example, a pension plan for housewives? This proposal seems to cater basically to the wealthy. The quick answer is that this is simply an extension of the law as it presently exists; we are taking it one step further. I realize it is an extension of the present law, but I wonder why we are moving in this direction instead of doing something for the poor people. If we stopped doing all these things that help the middle class, we could perhaps establish a pension plan which would help the poor, the ordinary working people. If the hon. member would consider not only what we have done for the middle class but also for those in the lower and middle income groups, he would find that a very fair balance has been struck. What the hon. member is suggesting may have merit, but we can only go so far at one time. There is a limit to the funds which are available to go around. Will this be classified as a gift by those provinces which presently tax gifts? Has the hon. gentleman received any legal opinion on this point? I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. member's question. I know that in Manitoba, for example, if a husband gives his wife more than $5,000 it becomes taxable. Would the $4,000 proposed here add up to part of a gift as far as that province is concerned? The point is well taken. However, the provinces are aware of what we propose to do in this legislation and they would have to react in order to give effect to the changes set out in the bill, changes which I am sure the hon. member would wish to see. Presumably, then, this would be tested in court. It is not a question of testing it. The hon. member mentioned Manitoba. The law would apply and a provincial tax would be payable. I think we would want the provinces to amend their legislation so as to give the full benefit to their residents. I see that in subclause (2) there is reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act and to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. There is something here, too, with respect to computing income tax; provision for deducting fees and expenses incurred in preparing, instituting or prosecuting objections to rulings of the commission, and so on. Are they to be found in the Unemployment Insurance Act? What do the words "instituting or prosecuting an objection" mean? Are we talking about a lawyer who acts on behalf of a disgruntled applicant? I may say I am in agreement with this provision, being familiar with all the bureaucratic red tape surrounding the monstrosity we now have. This covers the expenses of an appeal against a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It is a relieving amendment related to paragraph 60(o) under which a taxpayer when computing his income may deduct expenses incurred in appealing a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, a board of referees or an umpire. It is, in effect, a relieving section. The hon. member might be interested to know that it does include lawyers' fees. Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to rise on a question of privilege. I was merely seeking information. However, since the hon. member has given me that information I can understand members of the legal profession taking greater interest in these matters. I never think of the hon. member as being a lawyer, but always as a member of parliament. Hear, hear! Clause agreed to. On clause 31. Mr. Chairman, I move: That clause 31 of the French version of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out lines 27 and 28 on page 53 and substituting the following: "60.1 Quand, après le 6 mai 1974, il est intervenu un " Amendment agreed to. Clause as amended agreed to. Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to. On clause 34. We have an amendment here, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move: That clause 34 of Bill C-49 be amended as follows: (a) by striking out line 47 on page 54 and substituting the following: "virtue of the disposition of a property to" (b) by striking out line 10 on page 55 and substituting the following: "taxation year, there may be deducted as a reserve in" (c) by striking out line 23 on page 55 and substituting the following: "the property that is not due until a day" (d) by striking out line 27 on page 55 and substituting the following: "(i) the amount deducted" (e) by striking out line 29 on page 55 and substituting the following: "(a) in respect of the property in computing the taxpayer's income for the immediately preceding taxation year, and" (f) by striking out line 31 on page 55 and substituting the following: "amount in respect of the property that is not due until a day" and (g) by striking out line 33 on page 55 and substituting the following: "year and for greater certainty, no deduction may be made in respect of any amount or portion of any amount referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) by virtue of paragraph 20(1)(n)." Order please. Just for the sake of clarity, let me point out that the minister has moved the French version of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I notice that in the English version it reads "line 47" but in the French version it reads "line 46". Is there a reason for this? It sometimes happens in the translation that one version takes a little more space than the other. Amendment (Mr. Mackasey) agreed to. Clause 34 as amended agreed to. On clause 35. Mr. Chairman, I have just one question in respect of clause 35, on page 66, regarding expenses. Mr. Chairman, I am advised that this is a consequential amendment to subparagraph 66(3)(b)(ii) incorporating a reference to paragraph 59(32)(a) or (c) which determines the amount included in income by virtue of Canadian exploration expenses and Canadian development expenses as amended by subclause (29)(2) and (36)(1) of the bill. The inclusion of this income increases the amount of deduction by an individual of Canadian exploration and development expenses within the limitations set out in revised subsection (66)(3). I am sure if the hon. member reads that and makes the reference he will find the answer to his question. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. This bill is sufficiently complicated as it stands, with 287 pages. It has been printed and circulated and we have all had it in our hands for several weeks. Now we are being asked to approve amendments being brought forward and read quite clearly, I grant you, but there must be 15 or 20 of them to this particular clause. With all due respect, I suggest that with the approval of the committee we should have these amendments circulated so that we can place them beside the existing context. Perhaps we could stand this clause. We are assured that these are technical amendments, but things have happened before, when technical amendments have been accepted, that have resulted in substantive changes in the law. With all due respect, I suggest that we proceed in this manner on this clause and any other clause that has so many amendments. Before I recognize the hon. member for Calgary South I should perhaps deal with the point raised. I suggest it is a valid point, but to be fair to the parliamentary secretary I should point out that he indicated he was ready to suggest that clause 35 be stood in order to allow hon. members to look at the amendment. This may not prevent further discussion, but if hon. members feel the clause should be stood, that is the committee's decision. Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member -- and I think his point is well taken -- I would indicate that all the amendments that have been put forward were tabled on February 10 in order that the action he is suggesting could be taken. I was going to indicate that these changes, quite frankly, involve corrections to the translation. This particular amendment is a new one and involves a series of changes, but all the others were tabled for precisely the reasons indicated by the hon. member. I would be quite prepared to go through these in the interests of getting the clause passed, if that would help. Mr. Chairman, I would support the remarks of my colleague as they relate to the amendments we are hearing about for the first time today. It is clear that the parliamentary secretary and the minister are reading from a prepared text, and it is also evident from the way they are reading that they do not know what they are reading. They have with them in the House a deputy minister who is backed up by a cast of thousands. The assistance they have in the form of the deputy minister is vast in that he has been working on these amendments and on the budget for many, many months. I would suggest that if the action is taken as suggested, the opposition should be provided with copies of these amendments in order that we can more closely scrutinize them. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the hon. member, as I did earlier today, that we have endeavoured to do just what he has suggested in respect of this income tax bill. These amendments were tabled and have been available for study for some time. When we indicated we had these amendments, they were discussed with hon. members opposite and were all tabled with the exception of the latest one. It does involve a series of amendments but, as I have said, they are for the most part technical. In so far as the study is concerned, funds have been made available both to the hon. member's side and to our side for the provision of research staff. I would hope that he is using more than just the staff he has in his office for the purpose of research, because if he is doing just that I do not think he would be too well informed. Knowing the hon. member as I do, I rather think he has access to other sources for research. In any event, if hon. members are disturbed about this amendment to clause 35 and would like to read the amendments and check them, we will give them copies, stand the clause and go on to the next one. Is it agreed that clause 35 be stood? Mr. Chairman, although I have no wish to be sarcastic, I hear complaints about amendments moved this afternoon. It has been indicated twice that these amendments were all tabled on February 10. Members with an interest in Bill C-49 could therefore have gotten a copy as I did myself. I even copied into the bill the amendments to the clauses. While not an expert in fiscal law, far from that, I believe it is easily understood for example that on page 62, "66.2 (5)b) (vi)" was an error. "(4)" should read "(6)". Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is trying to filibuster. You don't know what you are talking about. Mr. Chairman, we do not need a political speech in the House at this time. That is a filibuster. We want to get ahead with this debate. Shall clause 35, with the amendment thereto, stand? Agreed. Just one short question before we do that, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary or the minister could tell us whether there is anything of substance in the clause which we should be contemplating, or are they in his opinion strictly technical amendments? He doesn't know. If he does not know, it does not matter. He can tell us if he does not know. When I do not know, I seek advice. When I do not know, I will ask the deputy minister. Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member I would say that the clause has substance but the amendments are all strictly technical, correcting varying language versions, and that sort of thing. We have asked that the clause be stood the hon. member may look at it. Clause 35 stood. On clause 36. We have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has pointed out that there are some minor amendments to clause 36. In clause 36 of the bill the amendments are to pages 68, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 80 and 81. I therefore move: That clause 36 of Bill C-49 be amended as follows: (a) by striking out line 6 on page 68 and substituting the following: "112 and 113". (b) by striking out line 26 on page 73 and substituting the following: "expense of that other taxpayer or was, by virtue of subpara" (c) by striking out line 46 on page 73 and substituting the following: "est, paid by him after May 6, 1974, and before that time" (d) by striking out line 16 on page 74 and substituting the following: "paid to him after May 6, 1974, and before that time" (e) by striking out line 3 of the French version on page 75 and substituting the following: "59 (3.2)c), la fraction, s'il en est," (f) by striking out lines 12 and 13 of the French version on page 76 and substituting the following: "cumulatifs engagés au Canada, ou" (g) by striking out lines 25 to 39 on page 78 and substituting the following: "in Canada for the disposal of waste liquids from an oil or gas well, (B) drilling an oil or gas well in Canada, building a temporary access road to the well or preparing a site in respect of the well, to the extent that the expense is not a Canadian exploration expense, (C) drilling or converting a well in Canada for the injection of water or gas to assist in the recovery of petroleum or natural gas from another well, or (D) drilling for water or gas in Canada for" (h) by striking out line 19 on page 80 and substituting the following: "expense of that other taxpayer or was, by virtue of subpara-" (i) by striking out line 22 on page 80 and substituting the following: "taxpayer; and" (j) by striking out line 38 on page 80 and substituting the following: "paragraph (v) or (vi) that is estab-" (k) by striking out line 21 on page 81 and substituting the following: "paid to him after May 6, 1974, and before that time" (l) by striking out line 32 on page 81 and substituting the following: (m) by striking out line 39 on page 81 and substituting the following: "expense incurred by him." Mr. Chairman, if we can dispense with reading it in French, I promise to read the next one in French and save reading it in English. I am told that the French version is precisely the same. Agreed. In answer to the hon. member for Calgary South, I might say that this amendment was tabled on February 10 and passes on Canadian exploration and Canadian development expenses. Amendment (a) is a technical amendment at line 6 on page 68, deleting the reference to subsection 66.2 which was previously included in error. It is simply deleting that particular subsection. Amendment (b), the addition on line 26 at page 73 of the words "of that other taxpayer", is merely for clarification purposes. Amendment (c), the words "and before that time" have been added at line 46 on page 73 since the calculation of the cumulative Canadian exploration expense is done at a specific point in time, and therefore any amounts paid by the taxpayer have to be determined before that specific time. Amendment (d), the words "and before that time" have been added at line 16 on page 74 since the calculation of the cumulative Canadian exploration expense is done at a specific point in time, and therefore any amounts received by the taxpayer have to be determined before that specific time. Amendment (e), the amendment at line 3 on page 75 corrects the French translation to correspond with the English version. Amendment (f) at lines 12 and 13 on page 76 corrects the French translation to correspond with the English version. Amendment (g) is a technical amendment at lines 25 to 39 on page 78 specifying that the deductible expenses have to be incurred in Canada. Amendment (h) is a technical amendment at line 19 on page 80 which adds, for clarification purposes, the words "of that other taxpayer". Amendment (i) at line 22 on page 80 corrects a previous error. The word "and" was previously omitted by mistake. Amendment (j) at line 38 on page 80 merely corrects incorrect references. Amendment (k) is a technical amendment at line 21 on page 81 to clarify that the amounts concerned must be paid after May 6, 1974, and before the particular time: it is necessary to add the words "before that time" since the calculation of the cumulative Canadian development expense is made at a specific point in time. In regard to (1), this amendment at line 32 on page 81 corrects a previous error. The word "development" has now been deleted as was previously intended. In regard to (m), the amendment at line 39 on page 81 corrects a previous error. The words "incurred by him" were previously omitted by mistake. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary, when he is reading from his voluminous notes, would consider reading the page number first. He reads so quickly that by the time he gets to the page number, having quoted the paragraph, subsection and subsection of subsection, it is almost impossible for us to get the page open before he is on to the next amendment. It would be helpful if he would start with the page number. I should like to ask whether the amendments the parliamentary secretary is reading off so quickly and ably from his notes include recommendations which came to the minister late last week from the Canadian Petroleum Association and the Independent Petroleum Association relating to these special areas of oil and gas exploration? Mr. Chairman, I think it is traditional in this House not to say that such and such a group came before us and as a result an amendment was made. Individuals who have made representations will know from the legislation whether their recommendations were carried out. Perhaps the hon. member can tell you. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether the amendments he is giving us today were drafted subsequent to a detailed study of the suggestions from those two associations, by the sizeable staff of the Department of Finance. As I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, the amendments were tabled on February 10. Mr. Chairman, I am specifically interested in knowing whether any of the amendments that are today being proposed were drafted after consideration of the recommendations that came from the Canadian Petroleum Association last week. Mr. Chairman, I tried to answer the first time the hon. member raised the question. First of all, the amendments were tabled on February 10 and, second, I think it would be inappropriate to make that kind of comment. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the amendments that the parliamentary secretary is proposing to clause 36, he has repeatedly stated that the amendments were in our hands on February 10. I think it would be fair if the parliamentary secretary went further and indicated why they were not in our hands before February 10, bearing in mind the fact that the clause was substantially contemplated when the May 6, 1974 budget was brought down. I think we should have an explanation of why such extensive amendments were not forthcoming much earlier. In particular, I should like the parliamentary secretary to explain what prompted the amendment. Was it simply faulty draftsmanship on the part of the department, or were the amendments agreed upon after overtures were made by the private sector concerning those parts of the resolutions which gave them problems? Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, some of the amendments are corrections. In some cases, where a word or date was previously included it now has been taken out. In other cases, it was a question of having the French version correspond with the English version, and vice versa. Some amendments were in response to recommendations made to the department. We received some excellent representations and some of them have been carried forward in amendments. Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary did not answer my basic question. Why did it take from May 6, 1974, to February 10, 1975, to discover that these amendments were needed? Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate to remind the hon. member that in May we had a ways and means motion and not the bill. The bill did not come forward until December, and then there had to be reaction to it from industry and private enterprise. Bearing in mind the size of the bill, I think many of the amendments and changes that were tabled on February 10 are not significant as far as policy is concerned; they are simply correcting amendments. Mr. Chairman, that is the answer I was looking for. There were mistakes that became apparent on December 20 when the bill was finally put into form, and they are now simply trying to catch those mistakes which the department or outside consultants or advisers indicated would cause problems. This being such a big section, possibly one of the most important sections in these amendments, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could indicate to what extent it reflects the current definitions concerning expenditures that are commonly used in the United States for this type of activity. Mr. Chairman, rather than copying the Americans, we have endeavoured to use Canadian nomenclature. Is the parliamentary secretary denying, Mr. Chairman, that the wording he has used is almost identical to that used to describe mineral exploration expenses under the United States code, sections 616 and 617? Mr. Chairman, we look at the legislation adopted south of the border, we look at the current Canadian practice, we list the representations made to the department, and out of all that available information we endeavour to draft legislation appropriate for the Canadian tax program. Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary is almost as evasive as his minister. My simple question was, is it not true that the wording being used concerning exploration expenses is almost identical to that in the United States code, sections 616 and 617? I have answered that question once, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the hon. member has the definition beside him. Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the parliamentary secretary's remarks on this question. It is rather interesting that the Postmaster General is now here, helping the parliamentary secretary to read many of these complex amendments. I would suggest to him that if something were mailed from Ottawa on February 10 to western Canada, there would not be time to consider it and mail it back in time for it to be discussed in the House eight days later. Maybe we should have some comment on that. Eight days is not enough time for return mail, much less for deliberation. Mr. Chairman, the reason the parliamentary secretary is answering the questions rather than the Postmaster General is that he is much more knowledgeable in this particular field than I will ever be. He is one of the better members of the House. We are not talking about postal legislation now; but I have brought in labour legislation and accepted amendments right up to the final moment, from the Canadian Labour Congress. As long as an amendment improved a bill and was in line with the philosophy of the bill, I accepted it. Representatives of the petroleum industry were present when the bill was tabled and had a copy of it 2 1/2 minutes after, when it was made available to the public. Without being hypocritical, let me say that I do not think anyone in this country has not been given the opportunity to make his views known. The fundamental point is that after hearing what these people had to say, we brought forward a bill reflecting as nearly as possible their constructive viewpoints. That was the whole intent of the exercise. Let me refer to what has been happening today. We have been correcting translations. Nobody can render a translation from English to French so perfectly that it does not need revising or clarifying. Some printing errors have been discovered, even though the bill has been proof-read umpteen times. But that is not unusual, as anyone who knows the printing industry will testify. Between February 10 and the present the bill has been improved and modified on the basis of recommendations of the Department of Justice and possibly of legal officers of the Department of Finance as well as others. Possibly some last minute amendments have further improved the bill. If the hon. gentleman is objecting to this procedure, he is objecting to a parliamentary process which has existed for 50 years and will continue for another 50 years. He should not be under the impression that any vested interests forced the government to water down the bill, because the government is above that. Mr. Chairman, speaking to the matter of amendments, as I am not a member of the treasury benches I do not have authority to move amendments to this income tax bill. Mr. Chairman, it appears we have difficulty in this part of the House in drawing your attention, or the Speaker's for that matter, when he is in the Chair, as indeed happened during the question period. The member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) pointed out that when the parliamentary secretary gives explanations on amendments, he speaks too fast. A clear indication is that the people doing the interpretation -- which they do with a high degree of expertise -- of the parliamentary secretary's terms are experiencing a good deal of difficulty, so we unfortunately missed in the French interpretation a major part of explanations on the tabling of amendments. The parliamentary secretary might wish to take note of it. When he explains the amendments he will move, maybe he could do so somewhat more slowly, in order that French-speaking members may enjoy full interpretation. Mr. Chairman, we are considering an important clause which allows oil companies in Canada to write off 100 per cent of their exploration costs. In an earlier budget the Minister of Finance wanted to reduce write-offs from 100 per cent to 30 per cent. Now that the government has a majority, the write-off provision has been increased once more to 100 per cent. I find it hard to follow the reasoning which allows a 100 per cent write-off to oil companies, in view of the recently increased price of crude oil and the subsequently increased profits of the subsidiaries of multinational oil companies operating in this country. The hon. member cannot be referring to companies in Saskatchewan. At one time the oil companies, which can hardly plead poverty, were content to explore in western Canada when oil sold for $2.80 per barrel. They explored before the world price rose to $6.50 per barrel. The price of crude oil in this country has more than doubled, and later this spring will rise from $6.50 to $8.50 per barrel. Oil company profits will, likewise, soar to unprecedented levels. The concession given to oil companies therefore seems discriminatory, especially when one considers profit levels of manufacturing industries in this country which are labour-intensive. In 1974, manufacturing profits, on average, increased 38 per cent. During the same period, oil refining profits rose 68 per cent and profits for western oils rose 109 per cent. Imperial Oil and Gulf made after tax profits of hundreds of millions of dollars. I think the time has come for the government to cease giving concessions and to collect taxes on these high profits. This clause is a retrograde step as it will allow rich subsidiaries of oil companies a 100 per cent reduction. From my reading of the bill, it would be possible for Imperial Oil, for example, to apply the provisions of this clause to the Syncrude project. For example, if Imperial Oil invests $300 million in Syncrude, it can, under the tax regime which will be introduced, apply that amount against the profits of its other operations. Oil companies will make unprecedentedly high profits. The minister has argued that oil companies need incentives because the amount of exploration has declined. We are not fooled by that argument. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has argued that Syncrude can be our salvation. The companies need not explore for the Syncrude oil as they know where the tar sands are. If the companies are blackmailing the government by saying they will not explore unless they are given a 100 per cent write-off of exploration costs, I suggest that the government itself should enter the exploration business through Petrocan. Let it award contracts for exploration and find oil for Canadians. I oppose the government's backing down and allowing the oil companies a 100 per cent write-off, and urge the committee to vote against this provision. Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary secretary has the benefit of the advice of the deputy minister, I would like to ask him a question with respect to subclause (3) of clause 36. The subclause would permit Canadian taxpayers to deduct 30 per cent of their cumulative Canadian exploration expenses from taxable income. Would the parliamentary secretary explain how the 30 per cent figure was arrived at? I would also like to know whether Canadian taxpayers can deduct land acquisition costs and whether any other incentives have been provided for Canadian taxpayers who are not principally in the petroleum business. Is there some incentive to take the step of becoming engaged in petroleum exploration? Some step has been taken in this clause. What other initiatives are there in this bill? Mr. Chairman, I will answer the questions in reverse order. We feel the package provides the over-all incentive. Why not 40 per cent? Ask the fellow who invented baseball why four balls and not three. Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary really did not answer my question. I think it is a very important aspect of legislation in this country. Since the petroleum industry came into being, Canadian investors, by reason of the punitive tax laws in Canada, have been excluded from investing in that industry on an qual basis with foreign investors in the United States. This government has continually gone about this in a negative way, trying to artificially exclude investment and change these patterns. There is nothing in this budget to significantly turn this around. I will rephrase my question to the parliamentary secretary. He said 30 per cent is traditional. The first time I saw the 30 per cent figure was in the May 6 budget. I suppose if something has been around for the better part of a year, to this government it has become traditional or long-term policy. I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary considers 30 per cent to be traditional. Looking at the complexity and the vast number of clauses and changes in the bill, it is only fair that the parliamentary secretary should outline for members what other aspects of the bill can be considered to slant toward incentives for Canadians, if in fact it is the intention of the government to truly have Canadians invest in this industry; or do they want to continually put them at a disadvantage while at the same time moving to exclude foreign capital in this area? Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is probably more familiar with the bill than I am with regard to this particular entreprise. I would think that after a careful reading of the bill, which he has obviously had, he would be prepared to concede there are clauses wherein there is that particular kind of incentive to the point where we are criticized on one side for doing too much and on the other side for not doing enough. Ignore them. The hon. member waves and says we should ignore the NDP. However, they speak for a fairly large number of people in Canada and represent a particular feeling in this country. We have to be pragmatic politicians and endeavour to find which will achieve consensus in the House. Mr. Chairman, I still cannot get an answer from the parliamentary secretary. He suggests that members should read the bill and draw their own conclusions. I say the parliamentary secretary has an obligation to outline this to the House or admit that he does not understand the bill and does not have these answers. To further add to the confusion, I wish to direct a series of questions to the parliamentary secretary which I am sure his officials can answer. It is my understanding that the May 6 budget proposed lowering the amount which companies could write off for exploration from 100 per cent to 30 per cent. First, there is the category for the principal business corporation. My understanding is they can write off 100 per cent of their exploration costs. In the May budget, that was proposed to be 30 per cent. In the bill before us today, a corporation that is not a principal business corporation can write off 30 per cent of its exploration costs. Am I correct in that? Yes, Mr. Chairman, with one change. It has been said that we backed down. I would not say we backed down; we backed off. The parliamentary secretary says they backed off. I wonder if that was as a result of having a majority government. In any event, by backing down, how much money will the Canadian treasury lose? How much money would this actually involve per year, going back the last few years and anticipating for the future, if they had written off only 30 per cent of their exploration costs rather than 100 per cent? How many million dollars are we dealing with? I realize this would be a guesstimate. Replying first to the hon. member for Calgary South, as I tried to indicate we have been chastised by the party to his left for the 30 per cent figure. The fact that we now allow 100 per cent exploration costs, and that the new tax abatement has had the effect of reducing the federal tax rate by 25 per cent, demonstrates initiatives that have been taken and which we hope will have a positive impact on this industry. In reply to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, in the budget speech of November 18 the minister indicated, as recorded at page 1425 of Hansard : For the year 1974, I estimate that the changes I am proposing tonight will improve the position of the oil and gas companies by about $100 million and of mining companies by about $15 million as compared with my May proposals. This saving for the resource companies affected is a full 25 per cent improvement over the May position. The hon. member may disagree with the word "improvement", but those are the figures given on budget night. Those are the figures for one year. I take it that was based on the current rate of exploration. Exploration is now down. If exploration increases, that could skyrocket in the next few years. Hopefully, that is what the government envisages. What is meant by a "principal corporation"? Is Exxon a principal corporation in most of the undertakings they have? Which are the non-principal corporations? Does this by chance discriminate against small Canadian corporations? I suspect it does. This is a point the hon. member for Calgary South has made in the past. If this is so, why is there the double standard? Mr. Chairman, I am advised this is a question of tax status and "principal corporation" is a definition that is well known. It has been founded in history for this particular enterprise. With regard to the hon. member's use of the expression "skyrocket", I must dissociate myself from that. We certainly hope exploration will take off, but whether it will take off like a skyrocket is something we really do not anticipate. I rise on the same point, Mr. Chairman. It is important that the parliamentary secretary tell us what is meant by "principal corporation". We want to know just how much discrimination there is against Canadian companies. By principal corporations, does the parliamentary secretary mean Imperial, Gulf, and so on; subsidiaries of American companies? We have the fantastic situation of the Canadian government giving subsidiaries of multinationals tremendous tax breaks compared with Canadian companies in the field. I cannot for the life of me figure out the reasoning, considering the capital pool and the amount of money these major subsidiaries in the oil industry in Canada can draw from their parent companies. When we think of Exxon, the parent company of Imperial, making profits last year of over $3 billion, we must ask why the Canadian government is not insisting that Imperial draw from Exxon some of the funds necessary for exploration, rather than giving them the incentive of a 100 per cent write-off. Figures for the decade of the sixties show the parent corporations gave to the oil industry in Canada only some 17 per cent of the capital needed by the subsidiaries to expand and explore and, in return, received in the form of dividends 18 per cent of the revenues raised in this country. So the parent companies are not financing the subsidiaries in Canada; in effect, the taxpayer is doing so. An analysis of the funds raised in the sixties shows that about 38 per cent of the capital raised by subsidiaries was derived from tax concessions and write-offs of the kind we see in the bill before us. Are we giving these corporations advantages which they really do not need? There is probably a basic disagreement between us as to whether they are getting advantages they do not need. But the short answer to the hon. member's question is that principal corporations are companies whose principal business is resource development. Under section 66(15)(h), a principal business corporation is defined. I do not intend to read the whole of the paragraph, but a principal business corporation means a corporation whose principal business is the production, refining or marketing of petroleum products or natural gas, or exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas. There are six further subsections and I refer the hon. member to them. It does not simply say that "a company" is the principal corporation. It could be an all-Canadian corporation, for that matter. Considering that 90 per cent of the oil industry in Canada is foreign-owned and that 99 per cent of the refining industry is foreign-owned, the parliamentary secretary is really saying that we are giving the bulk of the tax concessions to the foreign, multinational corporations operating in this country. Mr. Chairman, the discussion of this item prompts me to put forward a thought or two leading up to a question. I believe the hon. member would accept my view that over the last 30 years a large number of Canadian oil companies have gone down the drain. One of the reasons has been referred to specifically by the hon. member for Calgary South who sits behind me. It is that these write-offs, though well-intentioned on the part of the government, are in fact one of the major reasons Canadians have lost control of their own resources. The great bulk of the small companies have never been able to get into a position where they were sufficiently in the black to take advantage of these write-offs designed to encourage exploration. As I go over the history of events in the industry since the war, I see that well-intentioned parliaments thought they were helping the oil industry by making provision for write-offs. The intention is fine, but in practice the majority of the oil companies have not been able to survive because they never got themselves into a position where they could take advantage of these write-offs. The wildcatter trying to find oil knows that the chances against him vary between 8 to 1 and 20 to 1. I have seen many groups of Canadians pool their limited capital and enter this risky business of trying to find oil, encouraged by the thought that if they succeeded they would be able to write off the expenditures incurred. But they never found themselves in a position to take advantage of this particular concession. Under this arrangement the revenue department would simply allow a proportionate amount of the loss to be passed through to the shareholders in order that individual shareholders might get the advantage of what the government is trying to do. If this concept had been in effect in the past, some of these companies might have been saved. Some of them might, indeed, have become big companies able to compete with the internationals. Thus, the question I have raised is an important one and again I ask whether there have been any representations from independent oil or gas producers for this type of concession. I am advised that the representation or suggestion just made by the hon. member has not been addressed to the department. Most of the individuals who have made representations have set themselves up as syndicates to take advantage of existing provisions, instead of asking that losses be written off against shareholders' profits. If a syndicate were formed and took a loss, could that loss be written off against other income if it were not derived from the principal business? Is that what the parliamentary secretary is suggesting? I am advised that within limits this is precisely what is taking place, because the other opportunity, the one proposed by the hon. member, is not available to the shareholders. The reality of the situation is that you are dealing with an industry which is basically foreign-owned, and whether or not it is contributing to Canadian corporations is really immaterial. Quite often the funds raised in this country are invested in other countries. One choice is to keep it in the traditional free enterprise world and allow the corporations to develop the enterprise, to develop the oil. In order to do that you have to make all kinds of tax concessions, and the federal government recently-- What about Saskatchewan? I am getting to Saskatchewan right now. The government recently increased taxes on some of the extractive industries. The reason is the immense incentives in the United States in the form of low taxes and low royalties. The rigs are being pulled out of western Canada and are going down to the United States to explore and develop. That is a natural phenomenon in the free enterprise system. Anyone in that system will go where they can make profit with the greatest ease and where they can have the greatest number of shares with the highest dividends for their shareholders. If you play that game, which is what the federal government is doing, you have to offer incentives to match what the Americans are doing -- write-offs to the tune of 100 per cent for exploration -- in the hope of attracting capital. I do not think that will happen. The incentives we offer in this country and the type of oil we are going after will still make it more attractive than what they are doing in the United States. If you are going to offer incentives, you will have to reduce taxes on oil to such a low level that there will be a massive sell-out. So my party has been suggesting that we take another route. Why cannot gas and oil be publicly owned, as is electricity in most parts of Canada today? That is the situation in almost every country in the world. For example, in Britain all future energy developments are at least 51 per cent publicly owned. In France, Japan, most of the OPEC countries and many of the small developing nations, energy is publicly owned. The same should be done in Canada. This cannot be done exclusively in one small province in the country because you will have one province being played off against the other. If you take oil as an example, Saskatchewan owns 10 per cent and Alberta 85 per cent. If Alberta develops oil under the traditional corporate system where all kinds of write-offs and incentives are offered, while Saskatchewan imposes heavy taxes on this resource, naturally it will be difficult to develop oil through the free enterprise market. That is why, if you impose heavy taxes on the oil industry, you must establish a national petroleum corporation which would have the co-operation of all the provinces. You cannot play just half the game. One cannot be just half pregnant, as someone said. You have to go one way or the other. That is why I object to this clause. I do not want to see further write-offs being granted to oil companies. I know why it is being done. The government is trying to hand out a larger number of candies to them than is the United States. The time has come to develop this industry under public control, including exploration, development and refining. This is a non-renewable resource and it should be treated as a public utility. It is for that reason I object to this clause and other clauses which give greater incentives to the oil industry. Mr. Chairman, I will take only a moment; however, I cannot help but say a few words in case the minister and the parliamentary secretary were listening to the last speaker. I think it is a very simple thing: either incentives will be provided in Canada and this country will have at least a shot at being self-sufficient or, if we continue to follow the rules that the government is proposing in the budget, we will find that our country will fall far short of self-sufficiency. That is what this debate is all about. Many of the important clauses in this bill which affect the natural resource industries can be dealt with in a number of ways. There are all kinds of questions that can be put. It is simply a question, when the final figures are totalled, as to the kind of return an exploring company can get in Canada as against the kind of return they can get somewhere else. I think the key question, as suggested by the hon. member to my left, is that of public ownership, and I would like to put forward the following facts. Today, Canada is facing strikes in many critical areas where a few people, such as air controllers and others, can virtually shut down this whole country. I suggest to the members on my left and to the parliamentary secretary opposite that we could envisage one of the most serious situations that could be imagined in our country, with our cold climate, were we to concentrate all of the ownership in Crown corporations or public utilities so that by the simple turning of a valve by striking employees the country could be put up to ransom in such a way that it could not even operate for 12 hours. In these situations, a strike within any number of independent or even large companies has its limits. The fact is that these employees know that in bargaining there is a limit to which a company can go and maintain its viability, and these limits are certainly recognized by labour and by management as well. Strikes against the government and strikes against public utilities, when unlimited funds can be provided simply by running the printing presses, provide an opportunity for a small segment of the population to hold the country up to ransom. Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the comments of the owner of an oil drilling concern go unanswered. He has made a very interesting case for destroying labour organizations and unions in Canada by bringing out the red herring of a possible strike among the employees of a Crown corporation whereby they could hold the country up to ransom. A wildcat strike among any of the employees of any company that exists today, including Imperial, Gulf or any other, could do the same thing. But the hon. member ignores the major factor of who is blackmailing whom in this country, who is holding whom up to ransom. Of course, the most recent example is the Syncrude operation where a group of multinational oil companies beat this government into the ground. A couple of Mondays ago at a meeting in Winnipeg some oil companies manoeuvred Canada into a position of facing shortages and misled the government in their reports to the National Energy Board by telling Canadians that we had enough oil for 200 years, that we had nothing to worry about and that we could export millions of barrels of oil a year. But suddenly this government woke up to find that we do not have all this oil. Syncrude is the best possible example of this. A couple of Mondays ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said he would go to Winnipeg to convince the partners of Syncrude to postpone their decision to pull out by January 31. That is all he was going to do. Suddenly found that the Canadian government had committed $300 million to that project. The cost has continued to escalate. There were four reports prepared by the government of Alberta. The federal government received one of them on Saturday afternoon, another on Sunday evening and the third on Monday morning. On that same fateful Monday a decision was reached committing millions of dollars to a project that is still in the hands of the multinational corporations which sold-out Canada in the past and will continue to do so in the future. It is time we ended this farce of multinational companies looking after Canadian interests. It is time we looked after the development of Canada's oil supplies ourselves. Only in that way can we guarantee production and exploration in the interests of Canadians and at prices that suit the Canadian economy. Like Saskatchewan, where nothing is happening. Mr. Chairman, I have another comment or two to make in response to the hon. member for Calgary South. He said that our concern in this country should be self-sufficiency. I think that is a very important argument. People are interested in what will happen with regard to gas and oil. When you go around this country you find that this is the main concern. One is through the private enterprise method, which we have done in the past through multinational corporations -- that is the hon. member's way, the corporate enterprise way; that type of system is being subsidized massively by the government and has been for years and years -- and the other is through public ownership. In the first case, most of the profits that the multinational corporations make are reinvested in various countries. This clause will give them another $100 million this year, more money next year and still more in the years to come. What we are saying in our party is that we should develop public ownership as other countries have done. You can hire the same technicians, the same scientists, the same economists, but the enterprise is owned by Canadians. I was very happy to note that the hon. member for Calgary South did not try to refute any of the arguments about public ownership except to suggest that the labour unions would be more difficult to handle through public ownership than private ownership. I do not think that argument holds water. I think you will have the same relationship with labour whether it be a Crown corporation or a private corporation that is involved. The federal government should set the example in dealing with labour. I do not think that argument is relevant to the basic question of whether you should have public development. This is an important issue when we have a clause like this and when we are giving hundred of millions of dollars to foreign-owned oil companies. I do not think the taxpayers want us to do that. Mr. Chairman, I am constantly amazed by the tremendous inferiority complex of members of parliament, particularly those who belong to the official opposition. If you look at the international oil companies you will see that in virtually every country which has large pools of oil, including the OPEC countries, the governments have taken over 75 per cent, 90 per cent or 100 per cent ownership of that oil. I could list all these countries, but whether it is Venezuela in South America, or Iran-- How many of them are democracies? The question of whether they are democracies is completely irrelevant to the question of who owns the oil resources in those countries. Whether it is Venezuela, Iran, Iraq or Saudi Arabia, the oil has been discovered by the multinational corporations. These corporations have drilled the wells, built the refineries and the gathering lines and have paid a very small price to these countries for their oil. Speaking from memory, it seems to me that the Shah of Iran said some time ago that all they were getting was 12 cents a barrel for the oil being pumped out of that country. Most of these countries are still in the feudal age, with very few highly skilled or qualified technicians, but all of them who supposedly could not carry out the development themselves have taken over the oil. They have made an arrangement to have this oil purchased by the multinationalists. The multinationalists are dealing with these countries and shipping the oil to western Europe, to North America and to Japan. These multinational companies have, through negotiation, arrived at a price with which they can live. They have said to these countries that if they compensate them they will continue to do business, and that is what they are doing. When it comes to Canada, a country which has a great number of highly educated people, with engineering schools from which we have turned out thousands of engineers in the last 25 years, we are suddenly told we cannot do what the OPEC countries have done. I have a great deal more confidence in the know-how and ability of Canadians than, obviously, members of the official opposition. If we accept that suggestion, we are in effect saying that everything we have done since the end of World War II to upgrade the knowledge and skills of the Canadian people has been in vain. The hon. member for Calgary South wants to know about capital. These multinational corporations are not supplying the capital. The capital to develop the oil resources in this country resulted from the tax concessions and unconscionable write-offs which the people of Canada gave the oil companies through their governments, Conservative and Liberal. I am not blaming the oil companies for trying to get the best deal thay can. When they see that the country has a government composed of a bunch of suckers, they take every advantage they can. I suggest we have the resources and we have the capital to do the job ourselves; we have the know-how. But if we were short of know-how, we should make a deal with the oil companies, with which the can live, to develop our resources just as the OPEC countries have done. I noticed this morning that Guinea, a country in Africa which has vitually no trained people, is increasing its tax on bauxite in one shot by $40 million a year. We will not see Alcan, Reynolds, Kaiser or any of the other corporations producing aluminum moving out of Guinea, because they need bauxite and they will pay the higher price. You should think about democracy when you suggest that. This has nothing to do with democracy. In the waters off Norway there are tremendous oil resources and that country is controlling the way in which that oil will be developed and how much ownership it will keep. Great Britain has oil resources in the North Sea and has stated that 51 per cent ownership of the oil will rest with Great Britain. This has nothing to do with democracy. I want to say one more thing with reference to this red herring which the hon. member for Calgary South drew across the trail. He suggested there were no strikes in private industry, but there would be unlimited strikes in that sector. That is so ridiculous I cannot imagine anybody who knows anything about our society making such a statement. The fact is that there have been massive strikes in all major, privately-owned industries in this democratic society. 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 Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-- National Defence-- National Defence-- Disbanding of military bands-- Request Government review decision. 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, public bills, private bills, notices of motions. Is it agreed that those bills be allowed to stand? Agreed. Bill C-197 was a bill to amend the Criminal Code, and the purpose of that bill was to make it an offence to insult, in any way, a Canadian or provincial flag. The second, Bill C-198, was a bill to amend the Criminal Code with regard to foreign flags, and the purpose of that bill was to make it an offence to insult, in any way, the flag of a foreign country lawfully represented in Canada. Neither of those bills came to second reading prior to the end of that particular session of the twenty-eighth parliament. The bill before us today, Bill C-223, encompasses in its present form all three of the points in the previous two bills. When proposing legislation of this nature it is important to make certain that the law being proposed is practical and can be enforced in the courts. If this is not the case, passing such a law would merely be window dressing instead of something realistic, practical and meaningful on the statute books of Canada. With regard to this latter point I would like to express my appreciation to hon. members in all parties with whom I have had consultations with reference to this bill. I wish to make it quite plain that they have been most co-operative and understanding. I have also had several discussions with legal authorities who are concerned about the implementation and protocol of a law of this nature. Because of these latter discussions, and other research I have undertaken on the subject, I have this afternoon decided to make a major change in this bill by making it less complicated and, it is to be hoped, more practical. It is my personal wish to request the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw three words from proposed section 49.1. Those words are "or Provincial flags." In addition I wish to withdraw proposed section 49.2 in its entirety. This would make the bill deal with Canadian flag legislation only, and it would then read as follows: 1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding immediately after section 49 thereof the following: "49.1 Every one who destroys, disfigures, mutilates, defaces, defiles, desecrates or casts contempt upon the Canadian flag is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction." My reason for wishing to withdraw these two items is that I hope their withdrawal will ensure easier passage for the remaining part of the bill, plus the fact that we would be dealing with the ramifications of enforcing one particular piece of legislation instead of three at the same time. For example, if the House were to approve the bill this afternoon in its present form, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs could be faced with representatives from provincial governments across Canada who might wish to comment on the bill. The committee could also be faced with many representations from groups across the country in regard to the foreign flag section of the bill. Then, of course, there may well be people wishing to comment on the Canadian flag section of the bill. After considering all the ramifications of the present form of this proposed legislation, I have come to the conclusion that both the provincial and foreign aspects should be removed from the bill. I am advised by legal experts that it is normal procedure for the provinces to recommend to the federal government the changes they wish in the Criminal Code as it applies directly to them. Therefore, if I were to retain the part about provincial flags I might end up stepping on the toes of some provincial legislatures. That is certainly not my intention. Similarly the foreign flag section presents a problem in that many foreign flags of countries legally represented in Canada are on the various embassy properties which are excluded from Canadian jurisduction. If such a foreign flag is insulted in any way, the Department of External Affairs extends an apology on behalf of the Government of Canada and ensures that the matter is brought to police attention for action under the appropriate law. Many people have expressed views to me, and I am sure that other hon. members have had the same views expressed to them, that they are quite often disgusted when they see a flag being torn down, burned, or insulted in any way -- and I mean with intent to insult. I do not consider it an insult to or desecration of the Canadian flag if people wish to wear a sweater of T-shirt with the Canadian flag on it, if they wish to wear a Canadian flag on the hip pocket of a pair of jeans, or if they wish to sew a Canadian flag on their knapsack when travelling. This is simply a way for people to express pride in their country and their very definite identification with Canada. By bringing this bill forward today I wish to make quite clear to hon. members that if it becomes law I would not wish to have it used to charge someone where the intent is simply to express pride in Canada. If this bill passes I would want the resulting law to be used against those who wilfully damage a Canadian flag or insult it in any way, or where there is clear evidence that there was intent to do so. Any time that I have seen a Canadian flag being desecrated or insulted, my first thought was that the person or persons involved had no pride in the nation. There is also the underlying feeling that citizenship in this country carries with it not only rights and privileges but also duties. I hope that this bill will help such individuals to realize that Canadian citizenship is something in which Canadians take a great deal of pride, and that citizenship carries with it certain duties and responsibilities, and not just rights and privileges. Regardless of what human frailties we may have, as members of the House of Commons or indeed as members of the Canadian community as a whole we surely must agree that we live in a country with great potential. We live in a country with great institutions, and we live in a country that presents all kinds of challenges and frustrations. The latter we must tackle, and while doing so we must display a reasonable amount of patience and perseverence. A flag is a very important symbol to any nation, and by insulting the flag you are indeed insulting a nation and its people. If we, as Canadians, are able to treat that important symbol with the dignity and decorum that true Canadian citizenship has a right to demand from us, then it will make us look that much bigger in the eyes of other nationals. I suppose all of us in this House of Commons had many occasions over the years to visit the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day, November 11. There we see the ceremony carried out with decorum and respect by those who fought to retain our nationhood, while at the same time we pay our due respects to those who made the supreme sacrifice on the battlefield to preserve it. We are also well aware that the Canadian Armed Forces wherever they are around the world consider any ceremony dealing with flags, and with the Canadian flag in particular, as something that must be carried out to the nth degree of perfection along the lines that protocol demands. They have been responsible to a very large degree for portraying the Canadian image around the world, and the Canadian flag has become clearly indentifiable in the international community. I wish to thank this House for its patience and consideration during the course of my remarks and before I sit down I should like to ask unanimous consent of the House to remove the two parts of the bill that I have mentioned or, if not, I will give the House a commitment that if the bill receives formal second reading today I will see to it that those amendments are moved at the committee stage. Agreed. No. Madam Speaker, I would certainly not agree that the items the hon. member has suggested be deleted. I think the manner in which his bill was framed was good, no matter what his constitutional experts or the Department of External Affairs may have told him. There was an instance not too far from my own constituency in the summer of 1974, where an organization obtained moneys from the federal government and an incident took place when the Union Jack was desecrated and insulted. I think section 49.2 should remain, and I certainly would not consent to withdrawing it. Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to say a few words on this bill, and to congratulate in particular the hon. member who introduced it. Indeed it seems that if one considers what the Canadian flag represents one realizes immediately how important it is for Parliament to pass official legislation to protect it and particularly explain clearly to the people of this country what the flag truly represents. Those who sat here a few years back during the very difficult debate which then certainly divided Canadians for a while must understand that step must now be taken to avoid another division of Canadians on the flag issue, a flag which now, quite on the contrary, unites Canadians from coast to coast. It seems important to me that the bill be enacted because I had myself opportunities to wish that it were so. I come from the heart of Montreal, a part of our country which is particularly noisy and which is represented at the provincial level by a member who advocates breaking up Canada and who certainly managed to gain a few supporters. I already received representations from certain people in my riding asking to be protected because they wanted to fly the Canadian flag but felt threatened. I think it is absolute nonsense that a citizen of Canada -- such a free country -- should even feet threatened when he wants to fly the flag of his country, the national emblem. That is why I think the bill introduced by the hon. member is excellent, and I will support it. I would also like to make the following remark: It seems to me that respect for law and order in a society such as ours can only be enhanced if there were respect for its symbol, probably the most important, at least the most known, in that society -- its flag. That is why I congratulate the hon. member and I will support his bill. Madam Speaker, I thought the two parties of the opposition were going to speak on this bill. First of all, let me congratulate its mover. To my mind, deleting the words provincial flag and foreign flag is an excellent idea, because we would otherwise be intervening somewhat in someone elses's responsibility; what we are concerned with now is the national flag. As the preceeding speaker said a while ago, we have had enough discussions about the national flag. Some will doubtless say that this bill is not necessary. Whether they have reason is another story. The national emblem is in my view somewhat in the nature of a family picture, for instance. Children have a love for family emblems because they were brought up to respect authority, to love their parents. Laws will never be needed to prevent them from tramping on their parents' picture. This is something inherent that cannot be imposed by statute. But since we have in Canada different tendencies, I believe a bill to that effect is really needed, unfortunately, to prevent unseemly acts across the country. If someone has reason not to love his country and to make it known by tearing up or destroying the national emblem, we are entitled to ask ourselves why they tend to do so. It is certainly because they were not impressed by the behaviour of parliamentarians and the authorities in the country, or probably because they were disappointed by the administration of justice or witnessed shortcomings. These are questions that come to my mind when I think of the bill. I suggested it should be a natural thing to respect one's national emblem, to the extent that all citizens love their country. Who is going to induce them to do so? People in authority. If citizens see only gangsterism in the government, in the Cabinet, and in every parliamentary organization, how can they love their country? I believe primary responsibility rests with parliamentarians. We, as members of Parliament, should learn to show dignity, and especially in the course of these debates, knowing we are here to represent the people of Canada and we alone can make citizens love their country. They will love it to the extent they feel free and happy to live here. I am not ready to put immediately the blame on the groups who are going to rebel against the flag or any other emblem of this country. Instead, I wonder if this action was not provoked by people who should set a good example. This is why respect for the flag should not be forced by legislation, but should come from the pride that the citizens have of their country, from the confidence that they have in their administrations and from the security that they can enjoy in their country. I support this bill somewhat reluctantly since I would have liked that this Parliament promulgate more humane laws so that all Canadian citizens could be happy to live in Canada. In this way, Madam Speaker, we would be sure never to have to legislate to insure respect for the Canadian emblem. Madam Speaker, although the hon. member who introduced this bill did not obtain unanimous consent for his amending proposal, he gave a certain undertaking. As unanimous consent was not given for the hon. member's proposal, perhaps the committee might deal with it. This matter deals with questions of propriety, and some may think that the federal parliament is not displaying good manners if it deals with the matter, as some provinces may be offended. I say this because of certain opinions which have been expressed in the past by the Department of External Affairs. I remember one occasion when the Department of External Affairs gave an opinion about the propriety of flying the flag of the Ukraine in front of City Hall. That opinion was not an opinion in the legal sense so much as an expression of belief. The department suggested it would be improper to fly the flag, and great difficulty resulted. Eventually the city decided not to heed that dubious advice of the Department of External Affairs and flew the flag of the Ukraine on Ukrainian national day. Perhaps we ought to commend the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) for withholding unanimous consent. The hon. member who introduced the bill gave an undertaking; consequently, as I think there is general agreement, the subject matter of the bill should be sent to committee. Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) was surprised because representatives of the official opposition and of my party had not taken part in this debate. The reason has now been given by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). We know that some genuine questions could be asked about this bill, but we think that the idea that we should make sure respect is shown for the emblem of this country is good, and we support it. Therefore, we think it would be a good idea to read the bill the second time and send it to the committee. The hon. member who introduced the bill has indicated the changes he will make. He was not given consent for those changes to be made in the House, but this can be done in committee if the committee is so disposed. That was our reason for not participating in the debate, lest the bill get talked out. We are prepared to allow the bill to be read the second time and be sent to committee. Six o'clock. Before we call it six o'clock does the House agree to revert to committee of the whole for the consideration of Bill C-49? Agreed. The committee resumed at 8 p.m. When the committee rose at six o'clock, it was considering the amendment to clause 36. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a few moments to complete the argument I was advancing when the committee stopped discussing this matter. There is no evidence, in this or any other country, that people who work for the government or crown corporations are more likely to strike than workers in private industry. It has been an extremely efficient industry in terms of finding oil and selling it at a high price. There is no evidence that under public ownership the workers in the oil industry would be more likely to strike than at present. What about British Railways? I would be very happy to discuss the sorry plight of Great Britain with the hon. member on a more appropriate occasion. If he wants to look really at Great Britain, he should look at how little Conservative governments, which have been inpower for most of the last century, have done to force British industry to modernize its equipment and management techniques. Therefore I do not think we need to look at Great Britain to see what they have done. We are talking about Canada. We do not believe it is necessary for the people of Canada to give the fantastic concessions which the minister proposes to give to the oil and gas industries. This clause proposes that the entire cost of exploration and drilling for oil can be written off by the companies. When you do that, you virtually take away all the risks from the companies which are engaged in the oil business. If you drill a hole, regardless of whether it is dry or not, you can write off the cost against your profits. If you find oil, you are permitted to charge a very substantial price per barrel. You can make a lot of money. You can use the accelerated depreciation, the fast write-offs and everything else. We do not accept that that is necessary. I go back to what has been said many times by many people in this country. There is no need to develop all our resources just to give them away at bargain basement prices. Our resources will be needed much more in ten, 15 or 25 years from now. The value of our natural resources will be much higher at that time. We need not go out of our way, as the minister seems to be doing, to give the oil companies just about everything they want. That being the case, we cannot accept the basic proposal in this clause. Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on this clause. It is symbolic in terms of the attitudes the Conservative party has in defence of what it calls private enterprise as against the socialist way of looking at this. As with a lot of other things, we are using terminology in a different way. The Alberta members seem to be talking in terms of the defence of private enterprise which is relevant to a small sector of the economy owned by one or two family businesses or a few entrepreneurs, in the old sense of the word, that still exist in our economy and make a great contribution. However, in describing corporate capitalism they are using the same terminology. They are using a folklore of 19th century capitalism to describe corporate capitalism which has just as much planning as any socialist state, only the planning is done by the corporations in co-operation with any government that will co-operate with them. For a very long period of time it has been the policy of the Liberal government and the Conservatives, when they were in power under the right hon. member for Prince Albert, to play ball with these large corporations. They not only give them an enticement to help get over a risk period, but take away any chance that there could be losses. When talking about Imperial Oil, Exxon and what have you, there is no profit and loss situation. The government gives them depreciation allowances. These corporations are given 100 per cent write-offs as envisaged in this clause. But they have a planned way of getting what they expect with regard to dividends and internal financing. It always works out because government plays the game that is envisaged in this clause. The Minister of Finance, who is in the chamber this evening, should take a few minutes to explain to us why he has gone from a 30 per cent to 100 per cent write-off. Why not a 50 per cent write-off? Why must these large corporations have a 100 per cent write-off? Is the committee ready for the question? Can the Minister of Finance answer a question which my hon. friend and others put this afternoon when he was not in the House? In view of the increased profits being made by the oil companies, in view of the fact that the minister was quite prepared to allow only a 30 per cent write-off on May 6, and in view of the fact that the 100 per cent write-off now proposed applies to foreign-owned corporations, why is the minister backing off and taking the position that the 100 per cent write-off for exploration is now justified? I gave those reasons fully in the budget speech on November 18. Because the risk is so high in both the mining and the petroleum industry I felt it would be in the interest of the country to allow a 100 per cent write-off for exploration. Why has no consideration been given to the effect of the reduction in the provincial royalty rate which is now to be only 35 per cent as opposed to 65 per cent? The companies are getting an extra incentive from the provincial government yet the minister is still listening to the pleas of poverty from the oil companies by giving them 100 per cent. In the light of the concession the Alberta government is making, why does the minister still feel it is necessary for him to change his position? I have made that judgment and I have nothing further to add. Hear, hear! The minister says he changed his mind because of the high risk involved. Would he explain to the committee what is the risk? If there is a loss there are no tax penalties, and when exploration is made in or near proven areas the risk is, anyway, minimal. Certainly, in a situation like the tar sands or oil shale, or where there are known deposits of minerals, it is difficult to understand why a risk which was worth 30 per cent is now worth 100 per cent. But we don't. Since the minister confesses that we do not know what the risk is, or how much it is-- Oh! Why does he not provide that if they can prove that a risk was taken, and if a loss was incurred, they could write it off? Why not wait until they can show in subsequent years that a risk was, in fact, taken and a loss sustained? The explanation would probably not be undertaken because of the high risk involved unless there was a commitment in the law that the expenditure could be written off against current income. Why was the minister willing to do it for 30 per cent last year and why does he now believe 100 per cent to be justifiable? What is the reason for this startling change? Hear, hear! I find the minister's explanation incredible in the light of the profits the oil companies have received in the past and those they are getting now. Oil companies were content to explore when the price was about $2.80 per barrel. Today, although it is true provincial royalties have gone up, the price per barrel has also increased and the oil companies are making even greater profits. So the argument that they need extra incentives is impossible to accept. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to some figures on the cost of producing a barrel of oil and on the profits derived from its sale. Between 1965 and 1969 the average wellhead selling price was $2.58 per barrel. The finding and development cost was 52 cents per barrel, of which 13 cents went into exploration. When the price went up to the current figure of $6.50 a barrel the cost of finding and development did not rise -- it is still 52 cents a barrel. The cost of production is still only 35 cents a barrel. Provincial royalties have increased from $1.27 to $2.22 on the average, and federal taxes amount to 60 cents compared to 14 cents under the old regime. The profit derived by the oil companies, despite the higher taxes, is $2.81 per barrel, or 43 per cent, only slightly below the original profit of 49 per cent. And when we look at it in real terms, profits in dollar terms are much higher, the increase ranging from 60 per cent to 100 per cent last year, or gross figures in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Despite all this the minister says a 100 per cent write-off is needed. It is so obvious. If the people of Canada could only see how the tax laws are made they would realize who it is the government really cares for, that is to say, the multi-national companies and their corporate friends. These are the people for whom the laws are designed. Meanwhile ordinary Canadians pay higher prices while, at the same time, losing revenue because the government continues to subsidize the oil companies through tax concessions and write-offs. I believe the minister is out of tune with the people, or at any rate out of tune with the people I talk to in all walks of life. They are outraged over what has happened to our oil industry, over the Syncrude sell-out, and the lack of initiative on the part of the government in failing to take over the resources of this country and develop them in accordance with Canadian priorities. Clause 35 in the bill is just one further example of the sell-out on the part of the government to multinational companies, and it is also indicative of the change of attitude now that the government is in a majority in parliament and thinks it can ram this clause through to the detriment of all Canadians. I think the minister has failed to explain the change from the 30 per cent to 100 per cent, hoping that he had secured the majority of votes and that a mildly reasonable explanation would suffice. I think it is a national disgrace. Shall clause 36, as amended, carry? On division. Clause 36, as amended, agreed to on division. On Clause 37. Mr. Chairman, we tabled an amendment which I would like to move. It is intended to clarify the application of the fair market value rule where the taxpayer sells petroleum or mineral products to a government agent. I move: That clause 37 of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out line 20 on page 84 and substituting the following: (8) For the purposes of subsection (6), the fair market value at the time of disposition of a unit of any particular quantity of petroleum, natural gas or related hydrocarbons or metal or industrial minerals disposed of by the taxpayer referred to in that subsection to a person referred to in any of paragraphs (6) (a) to (c) shall be deemed to be the amount by which (a) the average proceeds of disposition that became receivable in the month that included that time by that person for the disposition of a like unit from a person other than a person referred to in any of paragraphs (6) (a) to (c) exceeds (b) the average aggregate of all expenses (including depreciation) incurred by that person in respect of that month for each such unit that may reasonably be attributed to transmitting, transporting, marketing or processing thereof to the extent that such expenses are reasonable and necessary and do not include any cost of acquisition thereof. (9) For the purposes of subsection (7), the fair maket value of a unit of any particular quantity of petroleum, natural gas or related hydrocarbons or metal or industrial minerals acquired by the taxpayer referred to in that subsection from a person referred to in any of paragraphs (7) (a) to (c) shall be deemed to be equal to the amount, if any, paid or payable to the taxpayer by that person in respect of that unit. (10) For the purposes of subsection (8), where a person referred to in any of paragraphs (6) (a) to (c) disposes of a unit of any particular quantity of petroleum, natural gas or related hydrocarbons or metal or industrial minerals to another person referred to in any of those paragraphs, those persons shall be deemed to be the same person. " The purpose of this rule is to ensure consistent treatment, whether the resource is marketed by a government agency at a mark-up, or by the taxpayer subject to government royalty. In each case the revenue from the resource which is taken as mark-up or royalty will be included in the tax basis. In order to achieve this objective, where the government marketing agency is involved the taxpayer is deemed to have sold petroleum or a mineral product at fair market value. I have a simple question for the minister. Has Clause 37, and the amendment to it which the minister has just moved, any connection with clauses 4 and 7 which are controversial, and which we are standing? Yes, it determines fair market value for the purpose of the deductibility or non-deductibility of a royalty. So it does relate. Is it understood then that we will be standing this clause after discussing the amendments? Yes, if that is the wish of the committee at this stage. Is it the wish of the committee that Clause 37, and the amendment thereto, be stood? Agreed. Mr. Chairman, I should like some clarification on a small point. I wonder if there is a typing error in the amendment. In the second to the last line of (9) we find the words "to" and "by". I wonder if those two words have been inadvertently reversed by the typist. Should that phrase not read "payable by the taxpayer to that person"? We will look at that when it is stood. It is agreed that Clause 37, and the amendment thereto, stand. Clause 37 stood. On Clause 38. Mr. Chairman, we have a technical amendment to Clause 38 which I would like to move, as follows: That clause 38 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out lines 31 to 33 on page 84 and substituting the following: `inventory of a business or a property described in any of paragraphs 59(2) (a) to (e)." ' (b) by striking out lines 37 to 42 on page 85 and substituting the following: "owned by him or deemed to have been owned by him on December 31, 1971, and thereafter without interruption, that was a property referred to in subsection 59(3) or (3.1) and shall be deemed to have" (c) by striking out lines 3 to 6 on page 86 and substituting the following: "amount included, by virtue of subsection 59(1.1) or paragraph 59(3.1) (a), in computing the amount referred to in subparagraph 66.2(5) (b) (v) from property in" (d) by striking out lines 20 to 22 on page 86 and substituting the following: "property referred to in any of paragraphs 59(2) (a) to (e) has, on or after the death of the" (e) by striking out line 53 on page 86 and substituting the following: "66.2(5) (b) (v), as the case may be, in" and (f) by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 87 and substituting the following: "subsection 59(1), (1.1), (3) or (3.1), as the case may" This is a series of technical amendments primarily to correct previous incorrect references to other sections. Shall the amendment to clause 38 carry? Agreed. Amendment agreed to. Shall clause 38, as amended, carry? I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The point was made this afternoon about trying to follow amendments as they are introduced, and it was suggested in this connection that the page number be read first rather than the line number. This is a small point, but when one is going through a document of this thickness and learns that there is going to be a change on line 17, and then finds it is on page 86, which may be four or five pages past where the last amendment was made, it is very difficult. It would simplify matters, I suggest, if the page numbers were read first and the line number after that. Then we could follow it much more easily. We will try to accommodate the hon. member. I might say that the amendments were all tabled, and if the hon. member really wants to follow them he can get a copy from the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment on clause 38(7) at pages 89 and 90. This clause deals principally with the intergenerational transfer of farm land from an individual farmer to his children. It has nothing to say about the subject which I think a good many farmers in Canada are keenly interested in, and that is why this same intergenerational transfer could not apply to incorporated family farms and farm partnerships. If it is in order I should like to make a few comments on that. First of all I want to say that I think family farm partnerships and corporations should be entitled to this roll-over provision. There are two other provisions included within the same clause, and they are the provision for five year averaging and the provision for principal resident exemption under the capital gains tax provisions. Those three items as they relate to the family farm corporate set-up and the family farm partnership are the items in which I am particularly interested. I should like to remind the minister of what I felt was a very useful meeting which took place in the minister's office almost a year ago now, on March 13, 1974. At that time he was good enough to meet with the tax committee of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Most of our conversation was directed to this subject I am raising this evening. At that time the minister was good enough to include myself and the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo in the meeting because of our obvious interest in the cattle industry in Canada. I made some remarks on this subject during the second reading debate and I should like to go back to two short paragraphs because I think they state in a nutshell the arguments which are pertinent. I said: It is important to remember that while only some 7 per cent of our Canadian farms are incorporated, they account for 28 per cent of our total farm production. These figures do not include farm partnerships. We should also take note of the fact that while we have some 336,000 farmers in Canada, about one-third of this number, 113,000, produce 80 per cent of our total farm production. It is a personal view, of course, but I make a clear distinction between a so-called family farm corporation and a business corporation in a non-farm sector of our society. Surely the fundamental reason for farm incorporation is to enhance and preserve the family farm as a meaningful farm unit. I should like to add that there seems to be a sense of responsibility on the part of the federal government and many of our provincial governments in that over the years they have encouraged this type of family farm set up in order to preserve the interests of families, keeping them interested in the family farm approach. Then I went on to say during second reading debate, in reference the meeting with the minister in March of 1974: --there appeared to be genuine interest and sympathy from the minister with respect to this matter. He suggested to our tax committee that because of the implications of our request, the so-called small business side of our society had to be seriously considered and he could make no decision at that time. He also suggested that his department must determine, in fairness to small businesses, if the roll-over provisions for small family businesses should also apply to them. To use the current phrase, I ask sincerely, why not? Surely a suitable definition of the term "small business" or "small family business" could be arrived at. This possibility could be given serious consideration. I think the minister has got into difficulty because he cannot adequately define a small business. In summary, I suggest that clause 38(7) of Bill C-49 has indeed done justice to the individual family farm, but at the same time it has drawn attention to a remaining injustice to other family farm businesses which do not enjoy this privilege. It seems to me that the term "family farm corporation" suggests something insidious or sinister about a big business type of project. Since that meeting with the minister a year ago I hope the minister has given this some thought and can make some comment on the situation. I would invite him to do so now. Mr. Chairman, I recall the meeting to which the hon. member for Medicine Hat referred. Subsequent to that meeting I was with the hon. member in the Kamloops-Cariboo constituency, both in Kamloops and Quesnel, where we had further discussions about this problem, so I have been doing a great deal of thinking about it. I have not been able to resolve the problem to the satisfaction of either the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo or the hon. member for Medicine Hat. We were concerned about persuading more people to stay on the land and produce food. We recognized the difficulty in respect of a family farm in the current economic structure, and we eliminated the capital gains tax on the transformation of a family farm from one generation to another as long as the land remains in agricultural use. The difficulty is that since the land is so illiquid, the payment of capital gains tax on the value of the land is very difficult, particularly in those areas of the country where there might be an artificial effect as a result of suburban sprawl. In this event the land is drawn out of agricultural production because the children cannot raise the money to pay the tax on the death of the father or mother, and it is the land, that is liquidated. In the case of an incorporated farm there is not that type of liquidity because the shares, by reason of estate planning, can be transmitted over a period of time within the lifetime of the father and mother, and the same problem of liquidity does not arise. On the question raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, there is very little logic in segregating the incorporated family farm as a business from any other incorporated business in the country -- of which there are hundreds of thousands -- so that in fairness, if one were to allow capital gains, free transmission from one generation to another in an incorporated family farm, there would be little argument for resisting that transmission on a tax free basis from one generation to another in any incorporated family business. That means an increase in cash flow for every small incorporated small business in this country of $11,500 per year. I am conscious of the problem the hon. gentleman brings to me, but I have not been able to surmount the hurdles I have just described to him. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to raise the last point again about this so-called small family business. The minister raised the point of the similarity between that and the small family incorporated farm. Why not treat them both the same? Is there anything wrong with giving the same option to the small family farm and non agricultural business below certain levels? The hon. member for Broadview said it would never end. I was thinking the same when I heard him and his colleagues earlier this evening. I do not want to tempt the hon. gentleman at all. I say that in a spirit of good humour which we all share at 8.45 p.m. The revenue consequences would be too extreme for fiscal absorption at this stage. Again, it is getting very hard to segregate the holdings of those incorporated entities as between the farm, the farmland, the principal farm residence and other investments which are held by that corporation. I have not been able to overcome those difficulties. I have not closed my mind to the suggestion, but there is nothing I feel I can do to respond affirmatively to the hon. gentleman at this stage. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the minister has not closed his mind to this, would he be willing to stand this particular clause for an interval in order to give us an opportunity perhaps to help him come to a conclusion? Since I have been thinking about it for a year, Mr. Chairman, I feel that all I can do at the moment is advise the hon. gentleman that I do not have a remedy for him, and the standing of the clause would not improve the situation. I think that if the Minister of Finance does not resolve this problem it will be with him to haunt him for the rest of his days because he promised to do this when the capital gains tax was first introduced. At that point in time he said that he would go along with it and try to resolve the problem. The question that I have for the minister is whether there is any plan of indexing capital gains for the first time turnover of the family farm as there is in the first time turnover of a home. No, Mr. Chairman. I am going to come at it from a different way in the hope that I can add enough weight to the concern the minister is showing in this problem so that he will make some serious efforts to make the adjustment we all know is fair and equitable. Ever since I have been around here we have received this same answer from ministers of finance that nothing of this nature can be done for the family farm because immediately the same privilege would have to be given to those in small businesses. I would like to relate to the minister what I think is the most terrifying experience a rural member can have these days, and that is to go visiting the farms of this country and to talk with the woman of the house. Perhaps I could add something new to the arguments the minister could use with his officials who hold adamantly to the idea that nothing can be done. This is the year of women. I see these buttons on the lapels of some hon. members asking: "Why not? " I am asking the Minister of Finance why not? The only way they can keep their operation going with the type of expensive equipment they have to obtain is to find someone who is responsible to look after that expensive equipment and the only person the farmer can turn to is his wife. Particularly at this time of year when farmers are filling out their income tax forms, it is more than the ordinary risk a politician should have to take to go into these farm homes, because the wife is just fuming. She has a long list of the hours she has spent driving the truck, running the grain loader, operating the tractor, running the combines, loading grain into the bins. She has a list of hours that would make a hired man in my day envious at having such a claim to send in to the boss. The farmer's wife sits there and watches her husband go through this detailed business of filling out his income tax form, and she cannot even claim for the wages she has earned the hard way, in addition to doing the ordinary chores expected from the distaff side in looking after the family, the house and so on. The husband sits there with his shoulders hunched in mortal terror, like the politician who is visiting, fearing that the wife will go beyond the bounds of sanity and really let loose. When I sit there and try to explain that the advisers to the Minister of Finance keep saying that it will cost the treasury a lot of money if we give this to farm families because they might have to give it to small businesses as well, it will not wash. This is the problem the rural politician has in this situation. It is not the revolution of women's liberation in the cities that terrifies the politician; it is the deep anger of a woman who has worked 3,000 or 4,000 hours in a year and cannot even collect the wages she should be getting. The lawyers get on television and hold out to these farm families the promise that, if they incorporate, then the woman or the children who work on the farm can be paid. Of course this can be done for a small legal fee. The minister lives in a city riding where it is pretty hard for a husband to find 2,000 or 3,000 hours of hard labour for his wife to perform during the year. Some of us, however, have to go out and meet those ladies on the farm, when they are tired and worn out, and give them the explanation the minister has given us tonight. I think that is more than a politician should have to do. It is putting him at a level of danger that an ordinary mortal should not have to face. I talk to the wives of small businessmen in our towns who work long hours with their husbands, and then they get hit with this at income tax time. The younger people are all leaving for the towns and cities today. In this House we have the hypocrisy to stand up and pay great obeisance to the ladies. This is their year, yet we will not even make a simple amendment to let them have the advantages of incorporation without losing the advantage of being able to pass the farm or store on to the next generation. I do not think the excuses we are getting from the Minister of Finance make sense; they threaten the survival of those of us who come from rural ridings. He is condemning us to a fate that is so awful that most of us do not dare face it. I know the minister cannot change this in a short time, but I hope that if he brings in another budget, in this year of the women, he will make this amendment. If not, there are going to be a lot of casualties among rural members of parliament of all parties. These women do not think we are doing our job here when we cannot persuade the minister to accept a simple amendment. It could be done if the minister would just take the initiative. It would not be too difficult to put down the conditions that would prevent the provision from being abused in the area of small business. I would like to see us maintain the family businesses in our country, and also the family farms. We are going to need all the production of these people in Canada and the world, and I would like to see the House override the objections raised by the minister and insist on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think the committee ought to recall that the only exception to tax free transmission of property from one generation to another is the one I introduced in the previous budget for the family farm. The hon. member is not going to catch me up on emotion on that situation. We brought it in because of the importance of the family farm and the partnership between man and woman on the farm. The hon. member for Medicine Hat is trying to suggest to the committee that we should extend that exception to incorporated family farms. I am saying to the committee that we cannot do that without extending it to every incorporated family business, and that I am not in a position to do. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain calls me a city slicker because he feels I represent a city riding. He knows this town pretty well, and he still canoes on the Rideau river between my riding and that of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. He knows there are a lot of good beef and dairy farmers in Cumberland and Gloucester townships. I want to assure the hon. member that the women of those townships are very well adjusted, liberated and fulfilled! Mr. Chairman, all I can say to the minister's last remark is that I am not responsible for them being fulfilled. Oh, oh! I am simply pointing out in falt contradiction to what he said, that if he cannot do this for the family farm without doing it for small business then he should do it for both. If he does not do it for both it is not morally equitable, and I do not think we have the right to stand up and brag that we are doing justice to women in this year 1975. Hear, hear! Mr. Chairman, I am curious about why the minister says so definitively that he cannot do it unless he does it for the small businessman as well. Is there any particular reason why this cannot be defined to apply to a small business farm? Mr. Chairman, it is because it is not the definition of the corporation that counts, it is what the corporation can hold. Once the corporation is incorporated there is no limit on what it can hold. Would the minister agree that the draftsmen of income tax legislation are usually adroit enough to define what is the main business of the corporation? If the main business is farming according to the definition, then you have a family farm situation and you go ahead and include them the provision. I think the minister has drawn a red herring across the situation when he says we have to go the whole way or not at all. It is possible to draft a provision that would apply to an incorporated farming business without any suggestion it should apply to all personal small businesses. Mr. Chairman, the difficulty is not just the mechanical problem, it is the equitable problem. I cannot draw that distinction between an incorporated family farm and an incorporated ordinary business because the shares are not illiquid and they can, in any family planning situation, be transmitted over the course of a lifetime of the owners of those shares. That is the difficulty. Once you attempt to incorporate the family farm there is no logical reason why the same tax free transmission should not be granted to any family business. That is the problem as I put it to the committee. I take it the minister agrees that from a drafting standpoint and legal standpoint it could be done, but he just feels that in equity it should not be done. In equity it is difficult to justify without going further. In terms of drafting it is difficult because you have to provide for some limitation on the holdings of the corporation. From an administrative point of view that would be very difficult to enforce. Clause 38, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 39 to 42 inclusive, agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to have clause 43 carry but I want to introduce a new clause 43.1 which I will explain. Clause 43 agreed to. It is a technical amendment to paragraphs 18(1) (m) and 12(1) (o) of the act, and is intended to clarify the application of the provisions in this bill concerning resource royalties and resource taxes levied by government. As part of the provisions affecting the petroleum and mining industries, this bill provides that government levies such as royalties and resource taxes would not be recognized as a deduction in computing the income of the taxpayer. It has become evident, however, that the French wording is not sufficiently clear to cover cases where one taxpayer reimburses another for such government charges. If, in such cases, the relief or levy is clearly being borne by the taxpayer who is making the reimbursement, the government will make it clear that this taxpayer's income is adjusted. The taxpayer being reimbursed -- usually a freeholder -- will be put in the position as if he had neither received nor made a disbursement with respect to the royalties or mineral taxes for which he was reimbursed. In this way it is clear that the owner of the freehold land who happens to pay a province an annual payment for that land which is leased to an oil company or resource company will not be penalized. If the oil company or resource company pays him rent for the use of that land, this provision will cover the tax which he would otherwise have to pay to the government. Unless we make it clear that the non-deductibility provision does not apply to the owner of the freehold land but applies to the oil company or the resource company which is using the land, the wrong person will wind up paying the tax. It is clearly our intention, if the committee will entertain the amendment, to have it stood with the rest of the resource clauses until they can be dealt with. May I put the amendment to the committee. I move: That Bill C-49 be amended by adding immediately after line 20 on page 95 the following clause: ` 43.1 (1) The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section: "80.2 Where pursuant to a contract between a taxpayer and another person (in this section referred to as the "payee") any amount is paid or payable by the taxpayer or any property is transferred by the taxpayer to the payee as reimbursement in respect of any amount paid or payable referred to in paragraph 18(1)(m) or the fair market value of any property paid or payable referred to in that paragraph by the payee to any of the persons referred to in any of subparagraphs 18(1)(m)(i) to (iii), for the purposes of this Act the following rules apply (a) the taxpayer shall be deemed to have paid the amount or property, as the case may be, to a person or persons referred to in any of those subparagraphs, (b) the payee shall, to the extent of that reimbursement, be deemed not to have paid an amount or property, as the case may be, (c) the payee shall be deemed not to have received any reimbursement from the taxpayer, and Mr. Chairman, as the committee has not seen the amendment, perhaps we could stand the entire clause as well as the amendment. Order, please. I understand clause 43 has been carried, and the amendment just put will introduce new clause 43.1. Mr. Chairman, I understand clause 43 carried, and I propose that new clause 43.1 should stand. Does the committee agree to stand new clause 43.1? Agreed. Clause 43.1 stood. Clauses 44 to 46 inclusive agreed to. On clause 47. I move: That clause 47 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out lines 31 to 33 on page 98 and substituting the following: "tion and, (a) at any time before the debt was incurred, any particular person, or the group" (b) by striking out line 43 on page 98 and substituting the following: "(b) at any time before the particular time, the particular person or group of" and (c) by striking out lines 14 to 16 of the French version on page 99 and substituting the following: " sonne donnée ou à tout membre de ce groupe de personnes, ou (D) toute combinaison de person- " Amendment agreed to. Clause 47, as amended, agreed to. On clause 48. I move: That clause 48 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out line 51 of the French version on page 103 and substituting the following: " tous les biens visés à l'alinéa e), l'alinéa d) ou e), selon le " and (b) by striking out line 46 on page 104 and substituting the following: "would, subject to paragraph (c), be deemed to be an amount that" Amendment agreed to. Clause 48 as amended, agreed to. Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to. On clause 51. Mr. Chairman, I wish to move a technical amendment, already circulated, to clause 51. The amendment would affect pages 115 and 122 of the bill. I move: That clause 51 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out line 31 on page 115 and substituting the following: "(5) Paragraphs 87(2)(p) and (q) of the said Act and" (b) by striking out line 36 on page 115 and substituting the following: ` "(p) for the purpose of computing a deduction from the income of the new corporation for a taxation year under section 64, any amount that has been included in computing the income of a predecessor corporation for its last taxation year or a previous taxation year by virtue of subsection 59(1) or (3) or paragraph 59(3.2)(c), or by virtue of subsection 83A(5ba) or 5(c) of this Act as it read in its application to a taxation year before the 1972 taxation year, shall be deemed to have been included in computing the income of the new corporation for a previous year by virtue thereof; (q) for the purpose of computing the ' and (c) by striking out line 6 of the French version on page 122 and substituting the following: " et les paragraphes (1), (3) et (10) s'appli- " This stands for "s'appliquent", I imagine. Amendment agreed to. Clause 51, as amended, agreed to. On clause 52. Mr. Chairman, we circulated an amendment to clause 52. The amendment is found on pages 123 and 128. I would like to propose it. I move: That clause 52 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out lines 5 to 24 on page 123 and substituting the following: `(3) All that portion of paragraph 88(1)(d) of the said Act preceding subparagraph (ii) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "(d) the amount determined under this paragraph in respect of each property that was a capital property (other than a depreciable property) of the subsidiary is such portion of the amount, if any, by which the aggregate determined under subparagraph (b)(ii) exceeds the aggregate of (i) the amount, if any, by which (A) the aggregate of amounts each of which is an amount in respect of any property owned by the subsidiary immediately before the winding-up, equal to the cost amount to the subsidiary of the property immediately before the winding-up, plus the amount of any money of the subsidiary on hand immediately before the winding-up, exceeds the aggregate of (B) all amounts each of which is the amount of any debt owning by the subsidiary, or of any other obligation of the subsidiary to pay any amount, that was outstanding immediately before the winding-up, and (C) the amount of any reserve (other than a reserve referred to in paragraph 20(1)(n), subparagraph 40(1)(a)(iii) or subsection 64(1)), deducted in computing the subsidiary's income for its taxation year during which its assets were distributed to the parent on the winding-up, (i.1) the amount of the subsidiary's tax-paid undistributed surplus on hand at the time it was wound up, and (i.2) the amount of the subsidiary's 1971 capital surplus on hand at the time it was wound up, as is designated by the parent in respect of that capital property in its return of income under this Part for its taxation year in which the subsidiary was so wound up, except that" and (b) by striking out line 13 on page 128 and substituting the following: "6, 1974, except that subparagraphs 88(1)(d)(i.1) and (i.2) are applicable for the purpose of computing the adjusted cost base of a property after February, 1975, and subsection (8) is applicable in" Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Now that the minister has given us the amendment in ordinary layman's language, would he like to put it into legal language for us? Oh, oh! Order, please. Before doing that, the amendment should be put to the committee. Mr. Chairman, we would like to see this amendment stand. Why? Mr. Chairman, I understand what the hon. member for Edmonton Centre is saying. I wonder whether he would allow the amendment to carry and just stand the clause. That is fine, Mr. Chairman. Amendment agreed to. Is it agreed that clause 52, as amended, be stood? Agreed. Clause 52, as amended, stood. On clause 53. Mr. Chairman, we have a series of technical amendments to clause 53. The page numbers are 129, 130, 131, 132, 136 and 140. I move: That clause 53 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out line 32 on page 129 and substituting the following: "tal property) before that time to the corpora-" (b) by striking out line 36 on page 130 and substituting the following: "section 84(1), to have paid before that time on an" (c) by striking out line 17 of the French version on page 131 and substituting the following: "(xiv), (xv) et (xviii) relativement à la" (d) by striking out lines 15 to 17 on page 132 and substituting the following: "ration and, (A) at any time before those shares were so issued, any particular person, or the" (e) by striking out line 28 on page 132 and substituting the following: "(B) at any time before the particular time, the particular person or group" (f) by striking out line 50 of the French version on page 132 and substituting the following: "property referred to in any of paragraphs 59(2)(c) (d) or (e)," (h) by striking out lines 29 and 30 on page 136 and substituting the following: "erty referred to in any of paragraphs 59(2) (c) (d) or (e) owned by" and (i) by striking out line 19 of the French version on page 140 and substituting the following: " actions d'une corporation, aux fins de la disposition (1) d) (iv.1) (C), l'augmentation " Mr. Chairman, I consider all these amendments to Bill C-49 extremely important. I understand that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is particularly familiar with the provisions which concern taxation since his role consists in ensuring that money is coming in to finance government expenses. With all due respect, I would like to suggest that the amendments be read more slowly so that we may follow them very closely. I make this suggestion with all due respect so that we may really follow tonight's procedure. Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member and I sympathize with him. I distributed all the amendments about two weeks ago so that the committee could examine them. However, I shall try to read carefully and clearly, and the hon. member could perhaps ask the Chair for a series of copies of these amendments. I see that you have them. Amendment agreed to. Clause 53, as amended, agreed to. On clause 54. I have one more amendment to this part of the bill, after which there are no amendments for a while. Perhaps the committee would turn to page 142 the bill. These are relieving provisions. I move: That clause 54 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out line 24 on page 142 and substituting the following: "tion that has, before November 19, 1974, become" (b) by striking out lines 30 to 34 on page 142 and substituting the following: "1971 capital surplus on hand if the paid-up capital of the corporation in respect of any class of shares of its capital stock at the end of its 1971 taxation year was the amount determined under clause 89(1)(c)(ii)(A) in respect of that class at that time," (c) by striking out lines 39 and 40 on page 142 and substituting the following: "hand if the paid-up capital of the corporation in respect of any class of shares of its capital stock at the end of its 1971 taxation year was the amount determined under subparagraph 89(1)(c)(ii) without reference to this subsection in respect of that class at that time," (d) by striking out line 45 on page 142 and substituting the following: "at any time after November 18, 1974 shall be" Amendment agreed to. Clause 54, as amended, agreed to. On clause 55. I think the Minister of Finance might help the committee by giving us some explanation of clauses 55 and 56, which I believe are related. In particular I would be interested to know what he feels would be the revenue implications. We do not have the revenue figures. The purpose of the amendment is to allow Canadian parent companies to operate abroad and only be taxable on that part of the income which is brought back into the country or not used in the legitimate business of a subsidiary. Revenue is very difficult to estimate since it depends on economic activities in the various countries in which the companies operate. Clause 55, agreed to. Clauses 56 to 68 inclusive agreed to. On clause 69. I should like to ask the minister for clarification of this clause -- I do not altogether follow the complexities of the tax structure. What is the deduction for which provision is made in paragraph 1 of Clause 69? Is it in the amount of $1,000, or is it more than that figure? It has to do with deductions for handicapped people. This includes as a deductible expense amounts paid in respect of an individual, the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependant, to a school, institution or other place equipped to provide training to persons who are handicapped. At present, the subparagraph restricts the deduction to amounts paid to a school or institution which takes only persons so handicapped. It is now being extended so as to apply to any school which may, among other things, deal with handicapped people. Shall clause 69 carry? I believe it is the intention that we should turn to other business at 9.30. We have some comments to make on clause 69 and I see it is now 9.30. Clause 69 stood. Then pursuant to the order made earlier this day I request leave to rise and report progress. While this legislation was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, it is not restricted only to the western provinces but applies to all provinces. The railways had not in the past been required to disclose information on their cost of operation unless the Canadian Transport Commission held that this disclosure was in the public interest. This left the provinces without the necessary information for the formulation of all policies. To date, considerable cost data has been made available to the federal-provincial Committee on western transport for its major studies. As well, where certain cost data have been requested by the provinces for policy formulation purposes, the federal government has arranged to provide this information through the Canadian Transport Commission. Western ministers have nevertheless pressed to have provisions for disclosure of cost information included in the Railway Act. The prime purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the federal government will be able to continue to fulfill its commitments in this regard to the provinces. I should add that this proposed legislation is an interim Measure pending the introduction of a transportation information act which will take in the whole transportation system and all modes. Let us look now at the four new sections to be added to the Railway Act. 331.1 This section implements the undertaking of the Prime Minister given at WEOC for disclosure of information on railway costs to a province on a confidential basis. For this purpose the information on costs is defined as costs of "transportation services and operations" or "costs of a specified movement of a specified commodity", for example, a car load of cattle from Edmonton to Montreal. 331.2 This section provides that the minister for his own use can request information on costs of any kind from a railway company. This provision does not arise from the WEOC commitment. 331.3 This section provides that information on costs cannot be communicated to or published by any person, except that such information can be communicated to ministers of the Crown -- federal or provincial -- or public servants -- federal or provincial -- required by their duties to receive this information. Subsection 3 provides that information on costs furnished to a provincial government or the minister under this act that is relevant to a proceeding under specified acts may be published or communicated by the province or the minister. This subsection implements the second principal undertaking on railway costs given at WEOC. 331.4 This section ensures compliance by a railway company with a request from the minister. If a railway company does not comply, the minister can use the powers available to him under section 82 of the National Transportation Act. Section 82 of the act provides in part that the minister has the power to summon witnesses, enforce their attendance and compel them to give evidence and produce books, papers or things that are required to be produced, as is vested in any court in civil cases. This, Mr. Speaker, is the gist of our proposed legislation. Mr. Speaker, what we want to do actually by the proposed amendment to the Railway Act is to be able to get all information pertaining to freight rates and their justification when requested by the provinces or the Department of Transport. I think that is what not only the western provinces but the others as well have been requesting for a very long time. We want to know. So, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill before us is very limited. There will be another later on, a general one, dealing with not only the whole cost but all forms of transportation. For the time being we want to know what it costs. The western provinces want to know what it costs to move commodities from one place to another and, presumably, the other provinces also want the same information. That is the purpose of Bill C-48 now before the House. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that I will not take up too much time of the House this evening because I understand that there are three more speakers. It would be tempting, after listening to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) speak, to get into all the areas of past inequities in eastern or western Canada pertaining to the whole aspect of freight rates, etc. I will not do that tonight because hopefully we will have time to scrutinize this particular piece of legislation at committee stage, and again on third reading. The western provinces, in fact all the provinces, have waited for some action from the government for a very long time. The minister mentioned the Western Economic Opportunities Conference held two years ago. When you view this particular piece of legislation I think it is apparent that it is a very small band-aid in the government's total approach to transportation, and because it is a small band-aid approach it is apparent that the transportation policy of the government is clearly in a mess. I think that that really goes without saying. In speaking to Bill C-48, the primary intent of the amendments is to provide the Minister of Transport with the power to obtain costing data from the railways at the request of the provinces. This legislation is apparently one step toward the implementation of a more comprehensive transportation information act as was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne on September 30, 1974. In response to this request, at the time the minister stated: This is one of the very few times I have been able to ascertain in the minister's political career that he was correct in a statement. There is little doubt in my mind, on looking into the various aspects of the National Transportation Act, that the power to obtain information from the railways re costing data exists under both the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act if the government wants to use that power. Dealing with the Railway Act, I intend to refer to specific sections because I think they are important, and I hope hon. members will bear with me. It is important that we look at the National Transportation Act in its total context, especially those sections which pertain to the bill we are discussing now and will be debating in the committee. In looking at sections 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, and 330 of the Railway Act we find they clearly outline the specifics of information to be submitted to the commission by the railways on an annual basis. Furthermore, if we look at section 328 we find it gives to the commission the power to dictate to the railways the accounting procedures and classifications which must be used uniformly by all railways under the legislative authority of parliament. If we look at section 331 we find it states that the commission, once in receipt of this consting information, may at its own discretion, dependant on the public interest, publish that information. Furthermore, if we look at section 335 we see that it indicates that the commission may require returns from the railways at any given time, and specifies the type of information it may request. If we look at section 335(3) we find it states that this information shall not be made public, but section 335(4) requires that the information may be communicated to the Governor in Council, in other words, the cabinet. Furthermore, section 335(5) states that the commission may make public the information when there are "good and sufficient" reasons for doing so, but it cannot publish the information unless the company is notified and its objection is heard. The purpose of outlining these sections of already existing legislation is primarily to illustrate that this piece of legislation before us in not needed at the present time if the government wants to use the existing legislation at its disposal. Bill C-48 will be, if anything, more restrictive than the present statutes. Under the Railway Act the Canadian Transport Commission and the Governor in Council are given a very broad range of powers concerning railway costing data. The Canadian Transport Commission has the right to publish this information in the public interest, consequently the provinces do have the right to examine the costing data under existing legislation. The provisions of Bill C-48 specify that the minister, upon the request of a provincial government may -- and there is the use of the word may again -- in writing request the railway companies to furnish him with information relating to costs "in such manner and to such extent as he may specify". Furthermore, upon receiving the information the minister may -- note once again -- release the information to the provincial government if that government has undertaken to treat the information as confidential. This amendment, as far as we are concerned, serves to restrict the dispersion of the material solely to the provincial governments which must, in turn, agree to treat the information as confidential. Consequently the restrictive nature of these provisions in Bill C-48 is clearly illustrated. We think that this entire piece of legislation is what could politely be called a political farce. The powers accorded the minister under Bill C-48 are powers which already exist at the request of the Canadian Transport Commission and the Governor in Council, if they wish to use them. This fact is openly admitted in section 331.4(2) where it states that if the railway refuses to comply with the request of the minister he can then revert to section 82 of the National Transportation Act as a contingency measure. We also believe that the bill appears to erode from the Canadian Transport Commission some of its duly appointed powers, and proceeds to place these powers in the hands of the Minister of Transport whose past performance, as far as the assertion of power is concerned, leaves much to be desired, and is at times shameful. We feel what can be termed the wresting of power from the Canadian Transport Commission is indicative of the persistent authoritative struggles between the ministry and the commission over the past few years. In some cases the commission, being the legally established regulatory transportation body, should necessarily have control over railway costing data, simply because it has the authority to control the rate of every mode of transportation in this country. It would appear that the minister has now deemed it politically expedient, and I would say that is the only reason this legislation is before us, to assume this control, especially where western Canada is concerned. The operational validity of the entire ministry of transport must, at the present time, be subject to the most severe criticism and skepticism. The minister has publicly admitted that the system is in a mess. He said this as early as March, 1974, nearly a year ago. I do not think anyone in this country believes the Minister of Transport when he says there will be a transportation policy in the near future. We have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) intervening in a legal and lawful decision taken by the Canadian Transport Commission in the public interest, and negating the effects of that decision. We also have the Minister of Justice making statements contradictory to those made by the Minister of Transport over the Crowsnest pass freight rates. We have seen situations where the president of the Canadian Transport Commission and the minister have persistently passed the buck over who has authority over what. We have witnessed the creation of numerous pilotage authorities which are allowed to operate completely autonomously from the minister, or from any control the minister has over them. We apparently have a situation, according to the minister himself, where the railways, and I am quoting the minister: ... when these companies consider they are making no money by investing in cars they do not build any. The minister said that on March 21, 1974, as recorded at page 737 of Hansard. The railways are thus hindering our grain transportation efficiency as well as Canada's international reputation as a grain supplier. The Canadian railway system is plagued with inefficiencies which the minister claims are beyond his control. There is a persistent boxcar shortage, and under the Canadian Transport Commission Railway maintenance is negligible, to say the least. The minister claims once again that these matters are beyond his control, yet the president of the Canadian Transport Commission contends that the minister does have the legal authority to order the railways to improve their services. Section 100(1) of the Railway Act provides that whenever the minister is aware that a railway company, which has received construction subsidies out of public funds, cannot be safely and efficiently operated, he may apply to the commission for an order that the railway and its equipment, or both, shall be put in a safe and efficient condition. The commission is authorized to make such an order, and the order may direct what repairs, improvements or additions shall be made to the railway, equipment, or both, and stipulate time limits for commencement and completion. The use of the word may in the subsection indicates that the minister has the discretion as to whether he makes an application. The minister repeatedly says that he does not have that discretion, so one can only draw from that the conclusion that he is still passing the buck, and that he is still either not interested or does not understand the significance of transportation in Canada. However, as a minister of the crown representing the public interest -- as opposed to private interests -- and as a trustee of the subsidy interest of the public in the railway, his discretion must be exercised in the public interest. The application of the minsiter, when made, must be in a mandatory form, that is, that the railway must be put in a safe and efficient condition, if the minister truly wants that to happen. This power vested in the minister under the Railway Act is confirmed by section 48 of the National Transportation Act. Again, Mr. Speaker, section 50 of the National Transportation Act authorizes the Governor in Council -- presumably on the recommendation of the minister -- to refer to the Canadian Transport Commission for action aything required to be done under the Railway Act, and the commission shall, without delay, comply with the requirements of such reference. Yet the minister has made no move towards utilizing the authority accorded him, and if one looked at the various sections of the act, which I have quoted, the sections provide the government with the power to go ahead and move toward solving many of the problems we have in transportation. This is especially true of the small piece of legislation that is before us, which is a political farce. Hear, hear! If this is the case, the implication of the provisions of this bill and the persistent use of the word may, which implies that the minister has a discretion, are such that they will render the legislation ineffective and useless. For this reason we intend to amend the legislation to ensure that its enforcement will reflect the public interest. It has been nearly a full year, give or take a month, since the minister first admitted that the system is a mess, yet absolutely nothing has been done. His speech tonight indicates that probably nothing will be done. The election promises the government made in the 1974 election were just promises. Commitments made at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference have disappeared in the midst of struggles within the department and politically motivated statements from the Minister of Transport from time to time, not to mention the kind of performance we have seen by the minister of transport here in the House of Commons. The issue is what group of men and what party can give the leadership to the country to solve its problems. " At the present time that quotation must have a very hollow ring even for the government backbenchers. There has not been leadership in the transportation area, to be specific, nor has there even been a passing interest in transportation from the Minister of Transport himself. I would like to close by saying that it can only be hoped that part of our transportation problem will be solved by the replacement of the Minister of Transport at the earliest possible time. Madam Speaker, many people in many parts of the country have been waiting many years for something to happen to our freight rate structure, in fact for as long as 40 or 50 years for parliament to act in this regard. I was hoping that the government would have deemed this important enough that we could have dealt with it a little earlier tonight, but there was agreement to do so at this time and I must abide by that. I want to say that legislation has been promised by the government and by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) for almost two years. The bill proposes a new section of the Railway Act empowering the minister to require the railways to furnish specified cost information, either at his request or at the request of the provinces, and to release such information to those provinces. As the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) said, such information will be kept confidential. The first question I want to raise with the minister and with hon. members is why the necessity for confidentiality. There is no need for it, particularly where there is no competition. There is very little need for it even wherever there is some small semblance of competition in transportation. The minister himself has said that competition in transportation in Canada does not work. I agree with the hon. member for Lisgar, and I hope that the minister will do this himself without our having to try to amend the bill so that it will read that the minister shall, not the minister may. I am sure the minister would want to amend his legislation to that effect. I have a lot of quotations from speeches of the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but I will be lenient on hon. members tonight, Madam Speaker, and not quote them all. I want to quote some of them, however, to illustrate what I believe to be the case, that the Minister of Transport does not have the support of his colleagues in caucus and in cabinet for what he would like to do for transportation in Canada. One only has to notice the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board run from one end of the country to the other, making announcements about Crowsnest pass rates, freight rate freezes, branch line abandonments and other areas of transportation that are the prerogative of the Minister of Transport, to see how he is being undermined by his colleagues. This bill is only a small beginning regarding the disclosure of costs. The minister promised a new transportation information act prior to the election, and the Prime Minister promised it during the election. If, and when, we get it we will want an extension of the disclosure provision to cover all federally regulated modes of transportation. We will press for a full disclosure, not only to provincial governments but to the public, where massive public subsidies are involved. Every mode of transportation in this country gets massive subsidies. The railway subsidies show up clearly, but the greater subsidies to highways, trucks and airlines do not show up as readily. There is no real competition in most areas of transportation in Canada, and so there is not the excuse of confidentiality. The public has a right to know, and this parliament has a right to know. It is not sufficient for the railroads just to disclose their costs. I, for one, do not believe their figures, and the minister, the provinces and this parliament need to be satisfied that their costs are not padded. If the minister does not have the authority to investigate the railways' claim of their costs of freight rates and branch lines, etcetera, then I hope that he will ask for that authority by amending this legislation. The hon. member for Lisgar said that he thought this bill was a farce because the government already had the power it sought. Certainly in certain circumstances it does, but I think it is significant that the provinces still want this disclosure legislation. That indicates to me that they do not belive the figures that are being given. I have only to quote the Premier of Alberta on this. The premiers of other western provinces agreed with him, and I am sure the premiers of the Atlantic provinces would agree as well. In March, 1973, Premier Lougheed said: We call here and now for the federal government to order both national railways to provide every aspect of their costs to interested provincial governments. The fact that the provincial governments want this legislation indicates to me their lack of trust in the railroads' figures. The four western premiers pressed their demand further in July, 1973, and secured a commitment from the federal government to get information on railway costs. In November, 1973, in this House the minister said: We made a commitment in the west to the effect that the provinces would be informed as to all details of the railway rate structures. Since he himself has said "we" -- meaning the government -- made a commitment, I ask why they have the word may in the legislation instead of shall. Later in November, 1973, the minister said: ... the commitment we made was to have the CTC and the railway companies give the information -- on costs -- at the request of the provinces. The provinces have made a number of specific requests and information with respect to them will be furnished... Perhaps the minister will tell us when we get to committee whether these requests have been complied with fully. I should also like to know what information the provinces asked for that they still have not received. This has been a thorn in the side of the Atlantic provinces and the western provinces ever since the CPR was built. The anomalies of freight rates -- or what I call the absurdities of freight rates -- have been a thorn in the side of the western provinces for decades. This is somewhat of an occasion this evening. We are finally dealing with this matter -- we finally have an opportunity to request our transportation industry to be honest and open with the parliament of Canada, the Minister of Transport, the provinces, and the people of Canada. Any attempt to rationalize a freight rate structure and remove inequities cannot succeed without full and complete cost data. The lack of progress to date in the federal-provincial committee has been primarily because of the refusal of the railways to supply the information requested. Let me give an example. An independent study done in Ontario by R. L. Banks and Associates, Inc. was commissioned by the Ontario government, and the report was released in November, 1973. It estimated that the cost of moving coal by rail from Alberta to Ontario was between $5.49 and $6.08 per ton. But the CNR and the CPR were requesting a rate of $9.50 per ton. In view of the importance of exploring relative economic efficiencies of alternative energy sources, the provincial governments of both Alberta and Ontario demanded information on the railways' cost structure and the rationale for what was obviously an excessive rate -- something over $3 per ton in excess of what was a reasonable cost. In my book cost includes a reasonable return on investment. Let us consider subsidies. Each year the two national railways receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies to cover operating losses on branch lines, or for what they claim are operating losses based on their figures and costs. Allegedly, these subsidies cover uneconomic passenger service. Even the CTC, which you can hardly call the friend of the Canadian public, has disallowed something like 20 per cent of the alleged costs claimed by the railroads for their transcontinental passenger services. Without full and complete costing information the public and the government have no means of knowing whether and to what extent subsidy payments are justified. The parliament of Canada has no alternative except to accept the word of the railways as being given in good faith. From my experience with railroads, both when I was with them and agin' them, I know that I cannot accept their figures in good faith. We have known too many years of bitter experience with our transportation companies, and I will not accept their costing figures as being given in good faith. Yet the government will part with $140 million, without knowing actual costs. That is what I call parting easily with public money. Let me say for the benefit of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), who I am sure agrees with me, that if our transportation system were treated, owned and operated as a public utility, if we eliminated nineteenth century concepts of competition and profitability and provided transportation service to meet the needs of Canada, all these figures, all these costs, would always be known to the government, parliament and the people of the country. To use the words of the Minister of Transport, our transportation system is in a mess. The freight rate freeze was imposed for 18 months and the railways have received or will receive compensation of around $180 million for what they claim to be the losses they incurred as a result of the 18 months' freeze. Madam Speaker, lacking full access to railway costing data, the government must accept, again, company figures at face value. What will happen when the freight rate freeze is lifted? Our people complain about freight rate inequities -- anomalies is the polite word, but absurdities is better. The government will part with $180 million to compensate the railways for alleged losses incurred while their freight rates were frozen; in addition, the lifting of the freeze will mean that these same inequities, anomalies and absurdities will be compounded by 25 per cent as of March 1. When you consider existing rates it is small wonder that provinces want costing information, and small wonder that we want it to be made public. Consider the rate for the shipment of iron and steel articles, not punched or drilled or bored. I am not sure if that applies to Liberal members of the House. To ship these articles from Hamilton, Ontario, to Vancouver costs $2.43 per hundred weight. To ship the same articles from Hamilton to Regina, costs $2.63 a hundred weight, or 20 cents more per hundred weight. Watch it! Regina happens to be 1,200 miles closer to Hamilton than Vancouver is. We could even ship members of parliament from Hamilton out at cheaper rates. Not the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander)! I am not disagreeing with your figures, but just watch it when you talk about Hamilton. The rate to Saskatoon is $2.84. What have the railways against Saskatoon? The distance from Hamilton to Saskatoon is not much greater than the distance to Regina. Let us talk about agreed charges, the rates arrived at between the railways and various corporations. The Minister of Transport has said that there is not much the government or the CTC can do about agreed charges because they result from contracts between the railways and corporations. Let us see what some of these agreed charges do to western Canada. The rate for 75,000 pound carload lots of calcium chloride from Niagara Falls and Shawinigan, Quebec, to Vancouver, is $2.63 per hundredweight; the rate to Regina is $3.12 per hundredweight. That is an agreed charge, a charge which the minister cannot touch because it is provided for under a contract. Now you can see why we support a railway costing bill. I should like the CPR to tell parliament and the Minister of Transport how come they can collect 49 cents per hundredweight more for calcium chloride shipped to Regina, when Vancouver is 1,200 miles farther down the line. Let us look at phosphates and sulphates. There is a fertilizer industry in western Canada. The rate for shipping 100,000 pound carload lots of phosphates and sulphates from Buckingham, Quebec, and Clarkson and Port Maitlan, Ontario, to Vancouver is $2.51 per hundredweight. The rate to Regina is $3.12, and to Saskatoon, $3.29. What have the railways against Saskatoon? What have they against Regina? Let us see how these agreed charges affect consumers. The rate for 80,000 pound carload lots of corn oil, corn starch, corn sugar and corn syrup from Toronto to Vancouver is $2.20; to Regina, $2.17, which is three cents less than the rate to Vancouver, although Regina is 1,200 miles closer to Toronto, and to Saskatoon, $2.42. The distance from Toronto to Regina is about the same as the distance from Toronto to Saskatoon, give or take 20 or 40 miles of rail line. Let me continue speaking about agreed charges. No wonder the people of western Canada and of the Atlantic provinces are upset after 90 years of discrimination, and betrayal of confederation by the national railroads; yet these birds opposite fight elections every time on the issue of national unity while they perpetuate discrimination in freight rates which make national unity a myth. The agreed charge for 100,000 pound carload lots of canned foodstuffs from southern Ontario to Vancouver is $2.57 per hundredweight; to Saskatoon it is $2.75 per hundredweight. Madam Speaker, the Canadian National main line runs through the south side of Saskatoon, yet the rate is 18 cents per hundredweight higher to Saskatoon than it is to Vancouver. To Saskatoon the rate is $2.93 per hundredweight, and Saskatoon is as far from southern Ontario as Regina is. I am enjoying this. I'm not. I hope the Minister of Transport is angry about these rates, because then we can do something about them. Let us look at the open tariffs on which the minister allowed the freeze to be lifted. The minister stated this only affected 22 per cent of the railway rates. That is true. However, it affected more than 22 per cent of the commodities the railways haul. I now wish to deal with the inequities in different regions of Canada. Let us look, for example, at live cattle and dressed beef. There were announcements in Alberta and Saskatchewan of cutbacks and closures of meat packing and meat processing plants. These announcements were made last year as well as from January 1 this year. There is a perfectly good reason. If I were the owner or operator of a meat packing or processing plant in western Canada, I would close it and build a new plant in Ontario or Montreal. It was bad enough during the freight rate freeze. It cost 91 cents a hundred more to ship a whole dressed beef hanging by its hocks from Saskatoon to Montreal, Ottawa or Toronto than to ship a live cow or steer. The minister allowed the freeze to be lifted. The railways fought the CTC order in the courts, supported by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). With a friend like that, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) does not need any enemies. The rate increase was allowed. Instead of the differential being 91 cents a hundred between shipping live cattle and dressed beef from Saskatoon to Montreal, on March 1 the difference will be $1.17 per 100 pounds. I do not believe the railways can prove higher costs to ship dressed beef as compared to live cattle. If the minister puts the requests properly and in sufficient detail, this railway costing bill will reveal that in the livestock, and meat packing and processing industry in western Canada, the railways have been robbing the people of that area. For decades these rates have discriminated against the manufacturing industry and meat industry in western Canada without any justification other than "all that the traffic will bear". There is no significant competition. The shibboleth the Liberals and Tories abide by is competition and profitability. They got together and did us in some more. The Edmonton Journal and the Western Producer of February 3 illustrate that it costs more to move 100 pounds of meat from Edmonton to Toronto than 100 pounds of live animal. After the 30 per cent increase, the differential will be $1.51 per 100 pounds. The minister has made many statements about inequities and discrimination. We all agreed with them. How can he now sit back and refuse to extend that freeze? These inequities have been compounded. Surely the minister could have said to the railways that even if the freeze only affects 22 per cent of the rates, it will remain in effect until the legislation goes through parliament and the railways' costs have been examined to see whether they are justified. If the minister had done that, he would have done a favour to the packing industry in western Canada. Burns and Company have been forced to cut their operations in half in Prince Albert because of freight rates. They make no bones about the fact that they would rather be operating with two plants in western Canada instead of five. Why? Because of freight rates. The minister in charge of the wheat board stated the Crowsnest Pass rates should be reviewed. He made a number of speeches on the Crowsnest Pass agreement. However, in answer to the hon. member for Lisgar, the Minister of Transport assured him he need not worry, that that item is not being reviewed. I would like to know who is correct on this, the Minister of Transport or the minister in charge of the wheat board. Who is calling the shots on this? I said at the beginning of my remarks that I do not think the Minister of Transport has the support and co-operation of his colleagues in cabinet and caucus. He is almost alone trying to win the battle of transportation, a battle Canadians have been trying to win for the past 90 years. One of the minister's colleagues is trying to cut not only his throat but the throats of all Canadians. In the throne speech of last September a long section was devoted to transportation. It stated: Transportation must be an instrument of national purpose, designed to achieve broad social and economic objectives. That is a beautiful quote. I could not have written it better myself. It continued: The government does not believe the principles underlying the present transportation system or its methods of management and operation are adequate to meet current and future national aspirations. Not even the NDP could have put a better line in the throne speech than that. We got a small beginning. I hope the minister will introduce some minor amendments to this bill. Commitments and promises were made by the Prime Minister, the minister, and their predecessors, including the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was Prime Minister. Most of this is not new. We have had it ad nauseam year in and year out. I can only assume it was not brought in sooner because the minister's colleagues in cabinet and caucus objected. The minister had a great deal of difficulty persuading them to bring this forward, if for no other reason than to honour a commitment made before and since WEOC. I say to the Minister of Transport that I will support him when it comes to the Crowsnest Pass rates. As far as I am concerned, the minister in charge of the wheat board would have a better chance trying to amend the Ten Commandments than changing the Crowsnest Pass rates. I have never believed the railroads' claim with regard to their losses in hauling grain. They have never put a figure on those losses. I believe that in this field the unit cost of moving grain has been cut in half in the last ten to 15 years. We need this bill to prove that the railways are not losing the kind of money they claim they are losing on the Crowsnest Pass rates. That is why the provinces of western Canada are asking for this information, whether the CTC already has it or not. I should like to say a word here about rapeseed and rapeseed products. I am not sure what disclosure may do to encourage the government to reach a decision on these items. When one considers the freight rates charged on rapeseed and rapeseed oil one cannot help wonder why it is taking so long to determine this matter. When the Minister of Transport was asked why the cabinet had not made up its mind on the rapeseed question he said, "That is Otto Lang's baby." Well, it seems to have been an abortion. According to the Minister of Transport, it is the Minister of Justices' baby, and he cannot get off the hook lightly. I know he has assumed prerogatives which belong to the Minister of Transport, sounding off with policy announcements and making statements he has no right to make. I can only assume he is doing this without the knowledge of the Minister of Transport; I would hate to think the minister agrees with his suggestions. One rapeseed mill has already been sold because of the delay in reaching a decision. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board says he is not sure whether he can get this matter settled in cabinet before the end of the year. If the Minister of Transport feels the bill before us would help him by giving him more authority, I am all for it. I hope that once he is armed with these powers he will not be in a hurry to review the Crowsnest Pass rates. I urge, too, that there should be no delay in reaching a decision with regard to rapeseed rates. We want information as to the cost not only of moving people and commodities but the cost with regard to the operational portions of the branch lines and particular sections of the main lines, because I do not believe the figures already offered. I believe the minister should invite experts from outside, from the provinces, to help him in reviewing these costs. I should like him to invite experts from other countries to take a careful look at what the railroads here claim to be their costs. It is my belief that some of those costs are based on trackage which was written off 50 years ago. There are still rails in use which were put down in 1910. I should like to know all these costs. So would the provinces. So would the Minister of Transport. I hope the minister will move a couple of amendments in committee. We shall deal with the matter quickly because the provinces are ready to make their requests, but in the meantime I trust the government will hold the line with regard to freight rate increases which would further magnify the inequities in the structure. We shall support the legislation, but much more is needed and we hope the government will not be slow in taking action accordingly. Madam Speaker, further to the agreement reached today on Bill C-48 by the leaders of the various parties represented in the House, I should like first of all to assure Your Honour and my colleagues that we will respect this agreement and that I shall limit my remarks to the strict minimum. With regard to the comments of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) broadcast last night with regard to the present disturbing economic situation in Canada, and more particularly in the province of Quebec, which situation will continue to worsen through 1975, we better understand the purpose the government wishes to achieve through Bill C-48. Still, it is time authority should manifest itself in Canada that the people might be reassured and that order might reign in our country, that the monetary capital might serve the human capital and that those two forms of capital might work together towards the economic development of our country. It is high time that taxpayers be in a position to know what it costs in such and such a sector to ensure essential services to the public and that without waste. I also understood that Bill C-48 is an instrument, a very valuable tool, providing we are willing to use it, put into the hands of a minister, a cabinet, so that the large companies, in this context, the railway companies, respect our country's laws and give accounts. Year after year, Parliament votes credits to subsidize this transportation system which often operates at a loss without submitting a detailed account of its administration to Parliament. Are the taxpayers' dollars used to the best advantage of all? That is what I have asked myself. Are Canadians receiving reasonable transportation services for their tax dollar? Now, the purpose of bill C-48 was to disclose the profits and expenditures of the CNR for the whole country, and not only for one part, be it Eastern ou Western Canada. Formerly, Madam Chairman, expenditures and revenues were not disclosed to the public. This bill will make the rendering of accounts and the disclosure of expenses and revenues to the public in general mandatory, so that they may have a clear view of this situation and that they might receive proportional return for their contribution to the maintenance of these public services. The provinces rightly requested information from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the federal cabinet, through the Canadian Transport Commission. The CTC, with all respect due the commissioners, has not always clearly met the taxpayer's demands. We have here another high-minded commission flying way above the people's representatives and ministers, not giving a heck about anybody, making decisions as they see fit without answering to Parliament for their administration. I hope under this bill we will at least have reports and see exactly what goes on in the field of transportation. As the Minister of Transport aptly said, clause 331.1 only requires companies to give what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) already mentioned at a western provinces' conference. If through an act of Parliament the wish expressed by the Prime Minister of our country is translated into action, we will be in a position to say one conference at least gave results and the Canadian taxpayers can be proud of it. Public information on railway costs has long been overdue, whether from CN or CP. We are entitled to know exactly what we pay for. Clause 331.2 provides the minister may require and publish cost information. For this reason, I wholeheartedly support Bill C-48 introduced by the government, and feel convinced my colleagues will surely follow suit when they have had an opportunity to get more detailed knowledge of it. In section 331.3, according to what the minister said a while ago, we are advised that it will not be possible to publish cost information until it is released to all the Ministers of Transport, both federal and provincial. We, as members of Parliament, should be inspired by it: to get to the bottom of things. We should closely check on whatever happens in any given area without acting silly. When we are asked to give information, we should be able to give it out. I think that, under section 331, the minister will at least have the satisfaction of being able to get the required information and then to pass it on to the public. I think this is the way it should be. I know this is not the second reading debate and that it should not be a clause by clause discussion of the bill, but in this I take example after the Minister of Transport who just explained the fundamentals of this bill. He said its purpose was to make sure the demands of the minister would be obeyed by the railways; through this bill the minister will have the power to make investigations, call witnesses to clear up the issue. Madam Speaker, if there is a minister with enough courage to present such a bill and insist that all this transport issue be fully aired, then I will gladly and vigourously endorse such a bill, if for no other reason than to shed light on the subject. Finally, whenever provinces request it, the minister wants to have information on the transportation costs in both western and eastern Canada, in order to compare railway costs to those for water, air, or land transportation. God knows, Madam Speaker, how many discussions have taken place over the last few years over the issue of feed grain transportation from Western to Eastern Canada. The Eastern farmers were asked to believe that if to get the same grade of feed grains they had to pay higher prices than the Western farmers, it was because of transportation costs from the West to the East, even though Parliament had passed legislation providing for a grant to compensate for this price differential. Of course, that grant did not always provide a fair compensation, but at least it was available and its aim was to establish a reasonable balance between production costs for Western feed grains and Eastern grains. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, as representatives in this Parliament, I and several of my colleagues did not always get the necessary information to be able to ascertain whether the subsidy did reflect the difference in prices, with the effect of giving eastern and western farmers equal chances. If this bill can enable us to force transportation companies to provide Parliament with real information on the cost of transportation, on the revenues accrued, and we eventually manage to determine whether there really are profits or losses, I think it will have been worth waiting a little bit later tonight to pass this bill and let it become a reality as soon as possible so as to enable the Minister of Transport to give us more information. I trust that the Minister of Transport will be honest and another bill will be introduced in the House. Hon. members will then be able to inquire deeper into the activities of railway companies and the effective cost to taxpayers of this public service which is essential for the development of our country. Madam Speaker, I have always considered that railway transportation services are a must for our country as a whole and that Canadian people are willing to assume the costs of that transportation provided it benefits the development of our industries throughout Canada and they do not have to pay twice as much for a service that can be obtained at a lower cost. I therefore commend Bill C-48 with all my heart. Madam Speaker, I suppose at this hour of the night I should give the benediction, the blessing, and go home; but that is not quite all. Certainly Bill C-48, on reading it, is self-explanatory. After all I have heard tonight, in the interests of fairness, time and expediency, I do not intend at this time to pass judgment on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) or his department. Certainly the matter of disclosure by the railway companies is a serious business. They are public utilities and their costs of operations should be public knowledge. Certainly the bill should go further and I trust that the committee will cause amendments to be made to make it more forceful and meaningful, and report it back to this House forthwith. This question of transportation is of the utmost importance in the minds of all Canadians, including those in this House. The government must get on the right track, and get off cloud nine. I come from a railroad town and I know some of the problems in transportation at first hand. The transportation problems in our country must be given priority of solution. This is a most essential prerequisite of our confederation, and the survival of our economy and our people depends in large part on straightening out the transportation system, once and for all, so we can then proceed to achieve greater heights in confederation, in unifying our country, and in eliminating regional disparities. We must have a policy and a plan, and we must be prepared to follow that policy and that plan. Transportation must be treated as a service to the public, not as a business. Until we realize that philosophy as the basis of policies to be drafted in respect of transportation, we will never really correct the difficulties. I am sure that we, in this House of Commons at this session, can straighten out most of those problems. Pursuant to an order made earlier today, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock. At 11 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order. The House met at 2 p.m. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning what I think is the most ancient privilege of the House of Commons under our parliamentary system, the right of the House of Commons to control supply. It might be said that that right is more than a privilege; it is the raison d'être of the House of Commons. Without that right, we do not have a parliamentary system. Hear, hear! Under the present Standing Orders which govern the examination of estimates and the voting of supply, in view of the rulings of the Chair on the interpretation of those Standing Orders and the pressures on standing committees when they are considering the estimates, as well as the utter impotence of the House of Commons at the report stage of the estimates -- except if the government is in a minority position -- the House must reject expenditures which are in the public interest in order to reject expenditures which are considered to be not in the public interest. But even when the government is in a minority position there is no way, under the existing rules as interpreted, for the House to reduce or to eliminate expenditures not considered to be in the public good, except by eliminating those which are considered to be in the public good. Due to these fetters on the House of Commons, we are not far from the point when we will no longer have a responsible House of Commons in a parliamentary system. Today, I believe, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chrétien) will lay before the House the main estimates of the government for the next fiscal year. After an examination which would be farcical if it were not tragic in its implications for this House and the Canadian people, those estimates involving that vast supply of money will be voted to the disposal of the government, perhaps without being reduced by one dollar or even on cent. This futile exercise will have served only to hold up the examination of the government's legislative program by this House and its committees. The government leader of the House has already conceded -- graciously, I might add -- that the procedures of the House dealing with supply are unsatisfactory, but no concrete action has been taken to correct this. Once again the estimates will be presented in the House and we will have to deal with them with unsatisfactory procedures which leave the House impotent. I realize that the minister may refer this question, with others, to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, but that has not yet been done. The motion has not been brought forward and no report that committee makes to remedy our supply procedure with regard to estimates can be brought forward and adopted by this House in time to apply to the consideration of the 1975-76 estimates. I submit it is essential that we have an ad hoc, pro tem remedy for this predicament, for this loss of our ancient privileges. If you agree, Mr. Speaker, that I have a question of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner): That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to meet forthwith to consider, report upon and recommend a sessional order that will allow debate, amendment, and vote by the House with respect to a selected number of estimates in the main estimates for 1975-76 or upon any portion of each estimate so selected; and that the committee report back with its recommended sessional order within ten days from the adoption of this order. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was good enough to give the Chair notice of his intention to raise this question of privilege. He indicated only that it related to the examination of the estimates, without giving the detail contained in the motion. Hon. members frequently raise grievances questioning the opportunity of members, under the existing Standing Orders of the House, to put questions in the question period, to receive answers to questions in writing, to debate or amend and, now, to examine the estimates. These are all very important grievances. This grievance relates to the examination of the estimates. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is without question parliament's most important function to examine the spending power of the government of the day. As important as the grievance may be, and as valid and as widespread as the support may be for the grievance or the concern about the status of this House to examine the estimates, the fact is that this status has been arrived at by a series of agreements and amendments to the Standing Orders in the orderly and regular process of establishing the Standing Orders of the House. While there may be legitimate cause for concern and, indeed, complaint as long as the procedures conform to the Standing Orders, I am not in a position to say that procedures which conform completely to the Standing Orders of this House can in any way constitute a question of privilege. Shame. What is wrong? Hear, hear! The loans are at about the same level as they were last year, but the budgetary total is $6.2 billion greater. The growth is largely related to the inflation that has affected the world and to the steps the government has taken to counter some of its effects on Canadians. The most significant single step, in dollar terms, is our $1.3 billion program to subsidize consumer prices of products of the oil industry. But the total increase in other transfer payments to aid Canadians has been even larger, about $1.9 billion. Some of these payments go in the first instance to the provinces, such as hospital and medicare payments, and some go to individuals, such as family allowance payments. Hon. members will surely remember that when he brought down the budget last fall, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) foresaw budgetary expenditures of about $28,750 million for 1975-76. Taking into account the funds that were not spent, that is the difference between estimated and real expenditures, I believe I shall be in a position to introduce supplementary expenditures of some $1,200 million during the year, without exceeding the total expenditures forecast by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance stated in November last that government outlays, in terms of budgetary expenditures, costs, old age security and guaranteed income supplement, will probably increase by 15 per cent during the financial year 1975-76. That rate of increase would therefore be considerably less than that he expected for 1974-75, namely 25 per cent. We are determined to maintain a rate of increase of about 15 per cent, unless, of course, exceptional circumstances arise. Some could occur similar to those which forced us to pay very high indemnities for oil products; this considerably increased our expenditures this year. The government is again publishing a booklet entitled "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent" to explain many aspects of the main estimates. This year we are providing much more information in this booklet on the details of government spending. Hear, hear! Because of this, members of parliament and the general public should be able to see more readily the immense variety of demands made upon the federal government. They also may gain a better appreciation of the difficult choices which always have to be made in attempting to meet all these demands. Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the statement which has just been made, I wish to thank the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chrétien) for his courtesy to the opposition in sending them copies of this document and to compliment him on his continuing habit of sharing bad news with everybody in the House of Commons. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), called attention today to the difficulty which parliament experiences with respect to controlling supply. We rise again to protest because government spending seems to have taken on a life of its own, much like the sucker that shoots from the side of a tree. This year the gardener promised to begin pruning and he promised that his shears would be sharp. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only thing sharp about the President of the Treasury Board's pruning of the estimates is his practice of telling parliament and the people that government spending will be moderated, when in fact he has permitted that spending to increase by $6.2 billion or 28 per cent over the main estimates of last year. What kind of moderation is 28 per cent? What kind of example is the government setting? The 1975-76 main estimates propose budgetary expenditures of $28.2 billion. This is $6.2 billion, or 28 per cent, more than the 1974-75 main estimates. It is $2.8 billion, or 11 per cent, above the forecast expenditures for 1974-75, taking into account approved and expected 1974-75 supplementary estimates. If you add the expected 1975-76 supplementary estimates in accordance with the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget of November, 1974, the increase in 1975-76 expenditures over those for 1974-75 is 15 per cent. This will make the percentage increase between those two years appear smaller, but only because the new Supplementary Estimates (D) will make the percentage increase from fiscal year 1973-74 to fiscal year 1974-75 larger than it is now. This government has acquired the habit of spreading various estimates over the fiscal year. How many supplementaries are expected this year? That is a question that ought to be answered. By how much money will they raise the expenditure planned in the main estimates? We will be examining in detail the expenditures of each department, but speaking generally we note from examining the objects of expenditure columns that there is little evidence of restraint or even attempted restraint. We note that man-years are scheduled to increase by over 11,000. That is hardly evidence of restraint in hiring. We note that the fees for professional and special services will increase by $100 million, which is evidence of completely disregard for restraint on the part of the President of the Treasury Board. They will increase from $780 million to $982 million this year. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we in the opposition demand three things from the President of the Treasury Board. First, he must assure the House that when supplementary estimates come to the House they reflect expenditures that could not have been foreseen and are not just the expansion of existing programs. Second, he must justify, in detail, increases in manpower and in consultants' fees. Third, he must specify what impact on inflation, what impact on interest rates and the money supply, and what impact on Canadian attitudes toward restraint these increases will have. Parliament and the Canadian people must know whether this government believes that these increases in government spending will be of small economic impact or whether they are merely evidence that this government, which has promised restraint, has at long last admitted it has lost control completely. We look forward to the examination of these estimates, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I thank the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chrétien) for locking us in his office between one and two o'clock this afternoon so we could take a broad look at the estimates that he has tabled today and at the various statements and press announcements he has now released. I think the first thing to be said about estimates of this magnitude -- it needs to be said to my friends to the right, as well as to the country as a whole -- is that civilization costs money. If we are going to build a decent civilization for the human beings who live in this country, we may have to spend even more than the amount in these estimates. We do not go along with the line that every time there is a proposal for government expenditure, it is a case of waste and carelessness. We are concerned when there is waste and we want the estimates to be examined carefully. I hope that as a result of the motion on the order paper in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) calling for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to review our procedures, we will be able to do something this session about the way we are dealing with supply and expenditures. However, Mr. Speaker, I think the more important matter for us in this House to consider today is that taxation and the spending of money by governments is not just a bookkeeping operation, not just taking in money and passing it out, but is an attempt to distribute the jobs and the wealth of this country in a way that will meet this nation's problems, in a way that will meet the problems of our people. In one of the press releases the minister gave us today in his office but which he did not read into the record there appears this paragraph: The broad theme underlying planned expenditures for economic development and support in 1975-76 continues to be that of encouraging stable and balanced growth of the national economy-- Listen to these words: --and a more equitable distribution of income and employment throughout Canada. Those are wonderful words, but they are hollow when they come from this government. This is a government that at the present time, in the face of 800,000 persons being unemployed, shows nothing but complacency toward that disaster. This is a government which this very week is engaging in conferences with the provincial welfare ministers regarding a guaranteed annual income plan. In the early part of 1973 such a proposal was put before this House and we and the provincial governments were led to believe that the first steps toward implementing that plan would be taken some time in 1975. But this week the provincial ministers of welfare are being told that the plan is at least 2 1/2 years down the road. Just before the next election. One of my colleagues in the back says, "Just before the next election." More than six million people are affected by this situation. Oh, oh! We thank the minister for having given us a preview of the estimates. I suppose I would not be revealing a secret if I said that in his office the minister suggested the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would want to cut down on expenditures. I would ask for more money to be put into our economy, as recognition of the fact that civilization does cost money; that we are going to establish an equitable distribution of employment and income in this country only when we really address ourselves to the problem. This has not been done by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his taxation policies or by the President of the Treasury Board in his spending policies. Equitable distribution of income and employment is a goal we must still pursue. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, at the time of the budget speech, on November 18, 1974, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) presented the House with estimates that had been prepared by officials of various departments and which gave a general idea of the economic and financial situation in the country. Today, however, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chrétien) advises us that the estimates will involve additional outlays of $1.2 billion to give the country the services and the administration Canadians need. But when we examine in committee the expenditure made by the various departments, we realize there would be ways of reducing them in many cases and using the money in other fields to render greater service to the population. The minister's statement and the covering document outlined the main measures contained in the budget. We can see that $28,242 million are spent for health and welfare. It is quite natural because all the efforts of a country, a family or an individual are aimed at protecting health, and at meeting physical needs. It is quite natural that a high percentage of the expenditures be earmarked for health and welfare. There is a second item which also takes an important part in the budget, namely economic expansion and support. I do agree that efforts must be made in this area but I ask the government, the cabinet and the President of the Treasury Board to consider the matter seriously before the subsidies which have been granted to big corporations are paid to see if the millions of dollars Canadians pay to expand or maintain their industries are really productive and create employment. If necessary, we should make comprehensive inquiries to see if money has been wasted and to prevent this from becoming scandals. A third item that is also very important is the public debt. I think we could speak about it two days and two nights, and there would be more to be said. Two months. Yes, for two months more. It is an important item. It is ridiculous to see how this item is considered as sacred. No one is able, in the existing system, to reduce it. We can discuss the others, but not this one. It is untouchable, it is more sacred than God himself. I think that our financing system in the public sector could be modified by making greater use of the institutions at our disposal, if only one act were changed -- the Bank of Canada Act -- so that the government can ask this institution, which we really own, to provide the public sector with the credits it needs at an interest rate covering administration costs only. After all, Mr. Speaker, what is a monetary system? I always thought it had to be a service, like the postal service, for instance. The monetary system must also be a service. It must be under government control and adjusted to the needs of the people. The day we stop allowing the tradesmen of the nation's credit to get richer because they have the privilege of making as many loans and deposits as they want under legislation that was enacted by parliament, but which should be amended, we will be able to lower the cost of servicing the debt. These billion dollars can be used to provide better services, to finance, for example, local initiatives programs. Every day people ask that their projects be accepted because they want to work. It would not cost one cent more to Canadians, nor to the government. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration would be very happy to approve more projects and Canadians would be happy to be able to earn their living. Mr. Speaker, before finally moving on to other business, may I make an announcement about the disposition of the estimates and ask whether the House might agree to a procedure that would assist the Leader of the Opposition and myself in having a look at the rules of the House in relation to the estimates. First of all, the motion of reference of the estimates will be made by Monday so that the examination can begin. I wonder whether the House will be disposed to pass now, without any debate, government order No. 10 which appears under Government Business. I would point out that that particular motion does provide for a temporary as well as a permanent change in the rules. It would enable the committee to deal immediately with this and other suggestions. I should like to raise a point regarding the point of order before this matter is settled. I do not think it is asking too much to ask for an assurance from the government HOuse leader-- Order, please. In fairness, because the President of the Privy Council had made what could be construed as a comment when he put the suggestion forward, I felt it proper to allow the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to make a comment in response. The fact of the matter is that the President of the Privy Council was seeking something that could only be done by unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent, it could be done now; if there is not, it would not be in order to debate the matter. In fairness, having allowed comments on both sides, I cannot let the matter go any further because it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Many federal employees are now denying some members of this House the services to which they are entitled, especially the manpower and immigration office in Montreal. Our secretaries try to obtain information for themselves or for the members, but it is denied to them when they ask in either language. When a French-speaking individual apply to those offices and that the employee is English-speaking, the information is denied to him. When English-speaking individuals make enquiries, they are turned away just as we are and just as are those who were asked to enquire. Not only do I consider the situation is very serious, but I think we should refer the problem to the Committee on Privileges and Elections so as to settle once for all this matter which prevents people and members from obtaining services. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to defer immediately the matter to the Committee on Privileges and Elections so that we may know how to deal with it. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support, as strongly as I can the representations made by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourrassa (Mr. Trudel). I would argue seriously and sincerely that he has a valid question of privilege. If at any time I, as a member of parliament, am denied the right to address citizens in Montreal in the language of my choice, I submit that I am handicapped in performing my functions properly and to the best of my ability. Hear, Hear! The procedure currently under discussion in the House -- that is the representation made by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourrassa as a question of privilege -- may be an awkward one to consider although I would argue it is a valid question. I think the underlying point should be made that we members of parliament from Montreal have certain responsibilities with respect to assuring our constituents, whether they be French or English, that there is an official policy on bilingualism and that the federal government stands for bilingualism. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate the concern expressed by hon. members. Although this is a matter of personnel policy under the direction and mandate of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chrétien), it happens that organizations under my direction have been involved in this situation. I want to assure the House that it is government policy and the policy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission to provide service to the public in both official languages and that in the offices-- That is the law. Fire them! Where such failure has been established we are prepared to take disciplinary action. Fire them! Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I think, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members opposite have said, that this is an infringement on the rights of members of parliament who attempt to get information from the UIC. It is also an affront to the Canadian public who, by virtue of the Official Languages Act, have a right to expect to be addressed in both languages when calling offices in areas designated as bilingual. In bringing bilingualism to this country, the government has made much of the fact that they were in favour of bilingualism, so I am sure they will agree that this matter should be dealt with speedily by this House in order that those offices not rendering proper service in both languages in designated bilingual districts can be immediately dealt with. If employees refuse to offer those services to the Canadian public, they should be disciplined immediately by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). Mr. Speaker, I have instructed the officials in my department to inquire into that subject. If officials working in any department do not comply with the acts of Parliament of Canada, they will be suspended for their acts. Order, please. I presume no other member wishes to contribute to this point. It raises, of course, a most serious question. It is not identical to, but is associated with, the other very difficult question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) regarding the functioning of members outside this House of Commons, this chamber, and interferences with their capacity to operate in areas of this sort. As hon. members will know, by its very nature it raises an extension of the traditional position that has been taken regarding questions of privilege. I am examining the precedents carefully in respect of the alleged question of privilege of the hon. member for Laprairie, and I would propose to do the same with respect to this question of privilege and, as soon as possible, rule on the validity of both at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects the rights of all members of the House. Unfortunately the matter only came to my knowledge a short time ago. I should like to raise the matter now with the possibility of arguing it more fully tomorrow. The question of privilege which concerns me is the matter of members of this House of Commons appearing before committees of the other place to make presentations to them on legislation which has gone through the stages of consideration in this House. I understand that there are procedures and traditions of the House that mitigate against this happening. I should like to develop my argument about this more fully tomorrow. Who put you up to that, John? Can't you leave Herb alone? The only answer is to get appointed there. Order, please. Agreed. Oh, oh! The Liberals said no. There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to request unanimous consent to introduce an important motion, surely of the utmost interest to all members and the Canadian people. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard): That the House recommend detailed study of the guaranteed minimum yearly income program, as proposed by the Social Credit Party of Canada, in order to help the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in the submission to the provinces of a more appropriate and more adequate plan for social security. Although I am sure, this is quite an interesting and significant suggestion, I regret it is not strictly a case of urgent and pressing necessity. Therefore, the motion cannot be put. Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter which I deem to be of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the orderly progression of the business of this honourable House has slowed almost to a standstill because of prolonged and sometimes unnecessary debate on bills now before the House, which, in turn, has caused an unprecedented backlog of legislation important to millions of Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming): That the House give immediate and serious consideration to extending the hours and even the days of sitting until such time as required to complete the disposition of bills on the order paper. Hear, hear! Oh, oh! On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-- You had left the House. Sit down. As there seems to be unanimous agreement-- Order, please. Let us understand one another clearly. If support for the substance of the motion is as widespread as it seems, surely ample machinery exists to implement that worthwhile suggestion. Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-379, to amend the Criminal Code. Explain. Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I wish to make a short statement in connection with this amendment. I realize that normally this is not allowed, but I hope that in view of the fine spirit of unanimity which is present today, I will be permitted to mention what I have in mind. Across our country today there is a carnival of gun murder. Thugs go here and there, intimidating or committing murder. Almost an open season exists. The reason is that there is no serious penalty against those wrongdoers who carry guns. I feel a minimum penalty for carrying a firearm should be added to any other sentence that may be given for the commission of a crime to the end that it will not be popular for those who carry guns to be in possession of them when endeavouring to commit an offence. What I propose is this: Every one who carries or has in his possession a firearm for the purpose of or while committing an indictable offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for not less than five years. If that were done as well as putting an end to allowing people out on parole before the completion of the five-year sentence, it would go a long way towards ending or greatly reducing the amount of crime committed today by those thugs who carry revolvers and other firearms. Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. (Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 919, 1,011, 1,032, 1,082, 1,108, 1,111, 1,117, 1,149, 1,166, 1,168, 1,214, 1,217, 1,237, 1,259, 1,260, 1,307, 1,317, 1,321, 1,329, 1,335, 1,358, 1,371, 1,452, 1,465 and 1,470. Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 149, 391 and starred question No. 196 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. Does the government have the technological capability and yard capacity to provide a Canadian-built and Canadian-operated icebreaker with polar capability for continuous progress through 7 to 10 foot ice in this decade? The Ministry of Transport has commissioned a design through a Canadian design consortium for a Polar Class 7 icebreaker which will be capable of continuous progress through ice up to 7 feet thickness. The design is expected to be completed in 1976 and if a decision is made to construct such a vessel it should be in service in this decade. 1. Do space programmes require (a) a continuous research and development programme (b) a high investment in facilities and test equipment (c) a well-trained technical source of manufacturing people? 2. Is it possible for Canada to identify continuing space programmes in order to maintain this expertise? 1. (a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Yes. 2. The government maintains an overview of space activities including research and application programme in order to ensure a reasonable balance of effort and the optimum use of resources. Examples of current government space programs include the Communications Technology Satellite project of the Department of Communications and the program of application development for remote sensing of earth resources and environmental factors carried out by the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. During the time that the Honourable Jack Davis acted as Regional Minister in regard to the approving or disapproving of Local Initiatives Programme applications, what are the full details of all projects not approved by the Minister or his office, including, in each case (a) the nature of the project (b) the names and addresses or organizations or persons on the project application (c) the date of application (d) the amount of funds requested (e) all reasons for disapproval given in any manner whatsoever by the Minister or his office? Not available. Only the Minister of Manpower and Immigration approves or disapproves Local Initiatives Programme applications, although he does receive recommendations from Members of Parliament of all parties, provincial governments and others. 1. With reference to the memorandum dated January 25, 1973 to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on the subject of the Local Initiatives Programme and signed by the Deputy Minister, Mr. J. M. Desroches, who is the Mr. Dicerni referred to on page 2, what was his job designation and what were his duties? 2. Is this individual the same person as Mr. Robert Dicernie, Special Assistant to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration as of the date on which the memo was written? 3. (a) What was the exact relationship of Mr. Dicerni to the Local Initiatives Programme (b) was one of his tasks to advise LIP officials in regard to projects that were to be approved for political considerations? 6. On what date and for what reason did Mr. Dicerni cease to be connected with the Local Initiatives Programme? 7. (a) What is his present position in government service (b) is he connected with the Unemployment Insurance Commission (c) do his present duties include performing any actions that are taken for political considerations and, if so, what are these duties and actions? 1. Mr. Richard Dicerni was employed as Special Assistant to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration from November 27, 1972 until September 1, 1973. 2. See (1). 3. (a) As a Special Assistant to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration Mr. Dicerni performed duties assigned to him by the Minister; (b) The task Mr. Dicerni carried out with regard to LIP was to maintain liaison with Members of Parliament and to consult with the regional Ministers, as described in Sessional paper 291-2-2319. 4. (a) and (b) One of the functions Mr. Dicerni performed was to inform the Department of ministerial decisions taken with regard to LIP Projects. 6. See 1 above. 7. (a) Mr. Dicerni is presently Secretary to the Unemployment Insurance Commission; (b) See 7(a); (c) No. I am informed by the Post Office Department and the Department of the Secretary of State as follows: 1. All documents as defined in the question have been made available in both languages for many years. 2. Therefore the question of retroactivity does not arise. 3. Not applicable. 4. Costs are not apportioned according to the types of activities mentioned above. However, the total demand for translation as represented by the number of words is available for the years 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. The production in words for 1972-1973 was 2,561,671; for 1973-1974 it was 2,668,059. On the basis of an analysis of operating costs for the Translation Bureau, the total operating costs are estimated at about ten cents per word for the two years in question. 5. Not applicable. 6. Since bilingual forms and documents have been standard practice for so many years, it is not feasible to make a meaningful cost comparison at this time. I am informed by the Departments of Communications and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. Documents required either for purposes of service to the public or communication with employees are translated as required from one official language to the other and distributed in both official languages. 2. Documents still in current use such as referred to in answer number 1 which were not initially produced in the two official languages, either have been translated, or are now being translated. 3. The translation of all such documents referred to in number 1 and 2 above will be completed in the first half of 1975. 4. Costs are not apportioned according to the types of activities mentioned above. However, the total demand for translation as represented by the number of words is available for the years 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. The production in words for 1972-1973 was 1,662,567; for 1973-1974 it was 1,370,760. On the basis of an analysis of operating costs for the Translation Bureau, the total operating costs are estimated at about ten cents per word for the two years in question. 5. Information not available. 6. Question No. 1,117-- 1. (a) What is the purpose of the Public Affairs Branch of the Post Office Department (b) does it have authority to act on complaints by customers? 2. On what date was it established? 3. How many employees belong to this Branch? 4. (a) What is the present budget of the Branch (b) what are the component parts of the budget (c) what has been the total cost of the Branch to the taxpayer since its creation? 2. In 1970, the Information and Public Relations Branch became the Public Affairs Branch. 3. There are 41 employees at Headquarters, of which 24 are information officers, and an additional 44 employees, in the four regional and 14 district offices, of which 33 are information officers. 4. (a) The operating budget for 1974-75 is $1,798,631, including salaries. 1. Was a press release issued by Environment Canada indicating the estimated cost for the Institute of Ocean Sciences at Patricia Bay as 20 million dollars and, if so, for what reason does this figure differ from the 1974-75 Estimates total cost of $10,750,000? 2. Has a decision been made to include additional organizations and, if so, what are they? 1. A press release was issued on December 10, 1974 the estimated cost for the Institute of Ocean Sciences at Patricia Bay, B.C., as $20,000,000. The concept design for the building facilities was completed in May, 1974 and the estimated cost was indicated as $12,063,000 in 1974 dollars. However Treasury Board asked that escalation be applied to this estimate which resulted in an increase in the estimated building facility costs to $16,198,685. With the addition of the wharf-marine facility cost of $4,200,000 the total estimated cost of the complex is now $20,398,685 with a 1978 completion date. This figure will be included in the 1975-76 estimates. 2. No decision has been made to include additional organizations at this time. In the years 1965 to 1973 inclusive, how many public servants were there (a) in Canada (b) in each province? Statistics Canada reports the following figures providing the details concerning the number of federal public servants in Canada and in each province through the years 1965 to 1973 inclusive. 1. (a) Is a survey form being circulated to CNR employees in regard to language capabilities (b) are such employees being asked if they are willing to take language training in one of the official languages and, if so (i) to what regional areas of CNR are such surveys being distributed (ii) have these been sent or will they be sent to employees of the Eastern Region? 2. (a) What persons authorized this survey (b) what are the names of all persons in government who in any way recommended or promoted the making of such a survey by CNR? 3. Is this survey another attempt by the government to promote bilingualism in Canada including areas that are predominately English speaking? Have rigid operational procedures been issued for seaplane operations, landing and taking-off in the Port of Vancouver and, if so, would the Minister provide a copy of the regulations and, if such regulations cannot be made available, for what reason? Special procedures are in effect at Vancouver Harbour which were promulgated in an Aviation Notice dated May 6, 1974. These require seaplane operators to use designated routes and altitudes when entering or leaving the harbour area. A copy of the Aviation Notice follows. Seaplane operations conducted in the Port of Vancouver are from a licensed airport and are in accordance with the section 529 of the Air Regulations which reads as follows: 529. Except when taking off from or landing at an airport or military aerodrome or except as specifically authorized by the Minister, aircraft shall not be flown (a) over the built-up areas of any city, town or other settlement or over an open-air assembly of persons, except at an altitude that will permit, in the event of an emergency, the landing of the aircraft without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface; such altitudes shall not in any case be less than one thousand feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of two thousand feet from the aircraft; and (b) elsewhere than over any area mentioned in paragraph (a), except at altitudes of not less than five hundred feet above the surface of the ground or water, unless such flight may be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. In the interest of promoting safe operating techniques within the Vancouver Harbour and reducing noise exposure in adjacent noise sensitive communities, no aircraft shall cross the built-up area of Vancouver below 2000 ASL. Aircraft operating to and from the Harbour will be expected to follow the procedures outlined below: 1. All aircraft shall maintain a listening watch on advisory frequency 122.9 Mhz. 2. This transmission will advise the position, height and intentions of flight. Example: "C-FABC approaching Third Beach for the Harbour". 3. This will be followed by advisory reports over Lions Gate Bridge, and Point Grey or Atkinson advising altitude and intention of flight. Example: "C-FABC" -- on take-off (Eastbound) (Westbound) followed by a second report. C-FABC by Lions Gate (with altitude) for Point Grey (Atkinson). --- --- Aircraft intending to transit the Vancouver Positive Control Zone shall contact the Vancouver Tower on 124.0 Mhz. when operating at or below 2000 ASL or Vancouver Radar on 125.2 Mhz. when operating above 2000 ASL. Refer to VFR Supplement for VFR procedures within the Terminal area. 1. On what date will the government publish reports on the public hearings, which ended in 1971, concerning Prince Albert National Park? 2. As of December 15, 1974, had the report or reports concerning the 1971 public hearings on the Park gone to translation and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason? 1. A firm date has not yet been fixed, but it is expected to be in February. 1. Under the 1974 OFY Programme, what amounts of money were allocated to each province and how many jobs were created in each province? 2. What were the specific criteria used to determine the allocation of OFY monies to each province in 1974? 1. 2. A Management Area was comprised of several Canada Manpower Centres. One-third of the OFY funds was allocated to the Management Areas on the basis of the distribution of the population 15 to 25 years of age in the areas as revealed by the 1971 Census. The remaining two-thirds were distributed in accordance with a prescribed formula which takes into account: (a) the number of jobs of a type considered normally available to young people, by area; (b) the population, 15 to 25 years of age, by area. The number of jobs available and the number of persons 15 to 25 years of age had been combined in the form of a Youth Job Availability Index for each Management Area. The numerator of the Index was the number of jobs available to young people in the Management Area; the number of persons 15 to 25 years of age was the denominator. The occupations included in the Index were restricted to those in which students and other youth could be expected to readily obtain work on account of the low skill and low experience requirements. The Youth Job Availability Index gave the relative position of each Management Area in terms of readily available job opportunities for young people and the number of persons in the youth age group (15-25). In other words, the funds were allocated to the Areas by taking into consideration job availability and the number of young persons in the Area. The total funds allocated to a Management Area was the sum of the funds distributed on: (1) the basis of the youth population in the area, and (2) the funds allocated using the ratio of Youth Population/Youth Job Availability Index. The total funds allocated to a province was the sum of the funds allocated to all Management Areas within that province. 1. From October 1973 to January 4, 1975, how much did the government pay in subsidies for natural milk? 2. How much money was paid to each province? Subsidies paid were for natural milk (fluid milk): 1. $108,772,197.18. 2. Newfoundland, $617,203.73; Prince Edward Island, $469,810.03; Nova Scotia, $4,604,787.87; New Brunswick, $2,779,441.85; Quebec, $26,188,963.29; Ontario, $45,524,396.51; Manitoba, $5,148,415.44; Saskatchewan, $3,872,297.47; Alberta, $7,962,313.85; British Columbia, $11,604,567.14. Is it CBC policy to deride the Stations of the Cross and the feelings of Canadians as was done on the programme Bye-Bye 74? I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The CBC French television network production of December 31, 1974, `"Bye-Bye 74' was a variety programme. The episode in question in the programme was a satirical one, in no way intended to deride religious practices. 1. How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development 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? 1. (a) 8,955; (b) 9,151. 2. 1974: (a) 5,518, (b) 3,124, (c) 302, (d) 11; 1975: (a) 4,228, (b) 4,257, (c) 623, (d) 43. 1. 1. How many full-time employees were under salary in the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975? 2. How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000? 1. (a) 184; (b) 230. 2. January 1, 1974: Under $10,000, 75; $10,000-$20,000, 72; $20,000-$30,000, 34; over $30,000, 3; January 1, 1975: Under $10,000, 70; $10,000-$20,000, 99; $20,000-$30,000, 44; Over $30,000, 17. Who are the members of the Canadian Committee on Oceanography and how frequently and on what dates did they meet in the past six months? In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows: Dr. J. D. Keys (Chairman), Mr. H. O. Buchanan, RADM. A. L. Collier, Dr. A. E. Collin, Mr. F. A. A. Fergusson, Dr. G. Filteau, Mr. A. H. Green, Mr. N. Haffey, Mr. R. G. Head, Dr. M. J. Keen, Dr. D. J. Le Roy, Mr. J. R. H. Noble, Mr. W. A. O'Neil, Dr. G. L. Pickard, Dr. E. R. Pounder, Dr. C. H. Smith. The Canadian Committee on Oceanography has not met within the last six months. Is it the policy of the government, when hiring through the Public Service Commission, to accept applications from citizens resident in any place in Canada for any job offered regardless of the location of the job opening and, if not, for what reason? I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: To carry out and give effect to Section 19 of the Act, the Commission has adopted Public Service Employment Regulation 10 which states: "Where an appointment is to be made to a local office from outside the Public Service in either of the occupational categories referred to in the Public Service Staff Relations Act as the administrative support or the operational category, preference in appointment shall be given to qualified candidates who reside in the area served by the local office over qualified candidates who do not so reside. " In categories other than the administrative support or operational, the Commission, in determining the area in which applicants must reside pursuant to Section 13 of the PSE Act, is influenced by: (a) The extent to which the area of competition must be extended to ensure that an adequate number of candidates is attracted from which to make a suitable selection, and (b) The need to confine expenditures to reasonable levels, consistent with the objective of appointing the best available candidate for the position to be filled. With reference to the illustrated booklet Radio Television Canada what was (a) the number printed (b) the distribution (c) the cost of this publication? Does the Minister of Agriculture consider that the farmers should produce more and, if so, is the government considering the removal of quotas on production so that Canada can provide more food for the world's starving millions? The Minister has stated on numerous occasions that he urges farmers to produce more, and that he is confident farmers will expand production if given adequate incentives to do so. The government does not impose production quotas on farmers. Marketing institutions such as the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board and some producer marketing boards use marketing quotas to achieve orderly marketing for the purpose of forestalling shortage and surplus situations, and to enable all producers to have equal access to the market. These marketing quotas do not restrict production and removal of them would not increase the output of food from Canadian agriculture. Have Chilean immigrants arriving via Cuba and Mexico been allowed by Ottawa to enter Canada after having been refused entry by Vancouver immigration officials and, if so, what are the reasons for the overruling? The Department of Manpower and Immigration has no knowledge of any Chilean immigrant arriving via Cuba and Mexico after having been refused entry by Vancouver immigration officials. Are there any plans to, in co-operation with the provinces, provide a complete network of all-weather highways through the Atlantic region, connecting to major markets in central Canada and the United States? Although the Ministry of Transport presently has no programme for assisting the Atlantic Provinces in improving their primary highway network, we are constantly reviewing the highway needs of each region in Canada as they relate to the national interest. Has the Pacific Region of the Department of Manpower and Immigration implemented the Cluster Management System for Canada Manpower Centres within that region and, if not, does it intend to implement such a system? The Pacific Region of the Department of Manpower and Immigration has not yet implemented the cluster management system for Canada Manpower Centres. However, development work on the concept is continuing and it is anticipated that it will be introduced later this year. 1. On how many occasions in the life of the 29th Parliament has a public servant, other than a translator, participated in a caucus meeting of the (a) Liberal (b) Progressive Conservative (c) New Democratic (d) Social Credit Party? 2. In each such case, what was (a) the name of the public servant (b) the dates of the participation (c) the subject-matter discussed? 3. On how many occasions in the life of the 29th Parliament has a public servant who was involved in preparation of a particular piece of legislation discussed the substance of that legislation with the caucus of the (a) Liberal (b) Progressive Conservative (c) New Democratic (d) Social Credit Party before that legislation was tabled in the House of Commons? 4. In each such case, what was (a) the name of the public servant (b) the dates of the participation (c) the subject-matter discussed? Return tabled. 1. How many Public Servants, by departments, commissions, Crown corporations, etc. earning over $18,000 a year in the past year received overtime pay? 2. Return tabled. Did any public servants in the last year for which the information is available receive any remuneration from another department while receiving full annual salary from their proper department and, if so, how many received such a remuneration and what were the circumstances that lead to the approval of this "double-dipping"? Return tabled. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Questions Nos. 636 and 637 were originally placed on the Order Paper of the twenty-ninth parliament on February 28 of last year as questions Nos. 222 and 225. The parliamentary secretary has only two parliamentary days left to save the government from going into year two in answering these questions. One deals with the olympic program about which members are entitled to some information. The second deals with the information service officers retained by this government. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can accept the challenge of saving the government from continuing this Rip van Winkle type of approach in not answering these questions. I suggest the hon. member take up his quarrel with the relevant ministers who are obviously not doing their work. Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker, the admission just made by the parliamentary secretary will be generally received with acclaim on this side of the House. In fact, the only criticism will be its limitation to the few ministers. I again raise a matter which reveals the complete contempt this government shows toward questions for which they have answers but refuse to give them. I refer to question No. 1,256. It was placed on the Order Paper last fall and answered in a way that had no regard to parliamentary procedure or to truth. Oh, oh! I put the question back on the Order Paper with a slight alteration on February 5. I simply asked about the pension received by a former minister of the crown, the Hon. John Whitney Pickersgill, and the salary he received when President of the Canadian Transport Commission. The government and the department are deliberately causing an affront to parliament by not answering. They contemptuously treat members of parliament as though they were not here or had no right to examine anything connected with expenditures. Mr. Speaker, I placed starred question No. 196 on the Order Paper last October 1. I asked: How many public servants, by departments, commissions, crown corporations, etc. earning over $18,000 a year in the past year received overtime pay? The second part of the question asks how many received overtime pay up to $1,000 and so on. I do not mind if the parliamentary secretary does not give a verbal answer, but I see no reason for him to ask that it be made an order for return. People are interested in the answer to this question. It should be printed in Hansard so they can get a copy and see what are the facts. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the continuing failure to reply to question No. 782 which has been on the Order Paper in various forms since the last session. It seeks to elicit information as to the number of individuals employed in Crown agencies who began their public service careers in the political offices of ministers of the Crown. The question has acquired particular urgency following the recent Bratton report which indicates that the major recruiting office for officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is the political office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to bring question No. 1,223 to the attention of the parliamentary secretary in the absence of the Solicitor General. This question has now been on the Order Paper for almost a month. It relates to the number of prisoners released from our penal institutions and to certain crimes committed by people who should not be at large. It is of some urgency and I hope an effort will be made to answer this question. I rise on a point of order having to do with the point raised by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North. It seems to me that what my hon. friend presented was not just a grievance but a request that the rules be followed. In my view there should either be a ruling or an offer by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to put the answer to that question on record in Hansard. My hon. friend referred to question No. 196, which was a starred question, and according to Standing Order 39(2)(A) he has a right to an oral answer. He did say he was prepared to accept the answer being put on record in Hansard, but I really think it is going too far to reply by saying that a return would be tabled. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would agree to printing the answer in Hansard. The hon. member will realize, I am sure, that the House has already passed an opinion on this matter when an order for return was made. Hon. members were asked whether it was the pleasure of the House that this be done, and it was done. We cannot go back over that ground. Perhaps the suggestion offered by the hon. member could be considered by the parliamentary secretary. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary suggested that I take up my grievance with the two ministers responsible. Could he be more specific? I think there are about five ministers who might possibly be involved. I rise on a point of order to call attention to the fact that it will soon be Easter again and that question No. 25 has remained unanswered since last Easter in the old parliament and again in this parliament. It is a simple question. It asks how much was paid from public funds for two specific trips made to the Caribbean for holidays by the Prime Minister and a second trip to Switzerland. Surely, all the bills and accounts have now been received and been paid. I believe I am justified in bringing up this matter again, as I have brought it up on several earlier occasions, without receiving any response from the parliamentary secretary. I think an answer to question 25 should now be available and I can only assume, because it has not been provided, that the government is trying to hide information from the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people. We are getting rather tired of information to which we are entitled being denied us. Hear, hear! Members on that side of the House are afraid of the consequences if the Canadian people are given these facts. I believe it is about time we got answers to our questions within a reasonable period of time and not six, eight, or ten months after they have been put down. Hear, hear! I do not wish to complain about questions which are still unanswered. I did that a while ago. But something has to be done if there is to be any sense of order in this chamber. What is happening now is what I predicted on Monday would happen, and it will be repeated indefinitely unless things are done properly; hon. members will use devices which go against the rules because the rules are not suitable in meeting the circumstances of the day. We have to move forward along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) so as to ensure that Your Honour is not put through the tortures of the damned trying to get us to the business we are supposed to be considering because the government is not handling the affairs of the House properly. Would Your Honour be so kind as to call Notice of Motion No. 24? Notice of Motion No. 24. Motion No. 24-- That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Air Canada contract and all additions, revisions and amendments thereto. The Air Canada contract contains considerable confidential information relating to the organization, operation and maintenance of the Air Canada lines. Air Canada's competitors are not obliged to provide such information or expose their contractual arrangements to similar scrutiny. To place Air Canada in such a disadvantageous position would not be in the public interest. Under these circumstances would the hon. member agree to withdraw the motion? How can a monopoly be at a disadvantage? In directing my question to the Minister of Finance, I would remind him that on January 28 he said he had informed labour leaders in Vancouver, I think it was, some time previously that from his point of view the addition of a COLA clause made a good deal of sense because it responded to the cost of living rather than anticipating rates of inflation which hopefully would not be attained. I would surmise that following this statement most labour leaders would think that a COLA clause was well within the ground rules of the Minister of Finance related to restraints and the policy of consensus he is trying to attain. Is this statement that a COLA clause makes a good deal of sense still the minister's view? Yes, sir. There may be situations in negotiations between employers and labour where a COLA clause would be less inflationary than a clause based on future rates of inflation which might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Each case must be examined on its merits. I should like to ask the minister whether his statement that from his point of view the addition of a COLA clause made a good deal of sense would not be taken to be a declaration of a much more general nature than he has indicated. Specifically, I would ask the minister whether it is the policy of the government in discussing a consensus with labour leaders and others to approve of the presence of a COLA clause in a contract. Would any contract negotiated with such a clause in it be regarded by the Minister of Finance as being out of order? As I indicated to the hon. gentleman rather fully last Thursday, just after orders of the day were called, we are at the exploratory or evolving stage of this consensus and the government has not yet put forward any proposals. We are listening to labour, management, professionals and consumer groups to find out what aspects of moderation in their claims against the economy are possible. Having told us that in his view a COLA clause would not be considered to be excessive in the case of labour contracts in the private sector, would the hon. gentleman indicate his attitude toward a COLA clause in a public service contract? Mr. Speaker, I have said that in general terms it may be that negotiation or settlement of any particular COLA clause would be less inflationary than a settlement which tried to anticipate future rates of inflation as a direct linear projection of the current rate. So far as public sector negotiations are concerned, it depends on the particular situation. I have full confidence that the negotiator on behalf of the government will take all factors into consideration, and the man in charge of negotiations for the government is my colleague the President of the Treasury Board. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the fact that a make-up pay boost is one of the basic requirements of continued negotiation with the postal unions with reference to the current troubles and has also been underlined by the Postmaster General from time to time as being one of the reasons for the continuing malaise among postal employees, would the President of the Treasury Board put forward some sort of proposition that would get negotiations started again with this important sector of the public service? Mr. Speaker, we undertook negotiations. I believe one group applied for conciliation, and we will be present. Everything is proceeding normally. We hope a common ground can be found, to the satisfaction of both parties. A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the specific question that I asked the President of the Treasury Board, is he considering the make-up-in-the-pay-cheque proposition that is regarded as basic to any resumption of negotiations with the postal workers? Mr. Speaker, I do not believe a move in that direction would be appropriate. The hon. member should know a $500 payment was made to all civil servants whose contract was not negotiated in 1974. Post office employees were paid that $500, as was every other government employee. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, that question ought to be referred to my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare who spoke on behalf of the government at a federal-provincial conference. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I saw the minister winking across the House, which surely suggests we should take his answer with some skepticism. I am asking him this question as Minister of Finance, and I think it is a reasonable assumption for us to make if past practices of parliamentary government have been observed by the cabinet, that he played a crucial role in this decision. Is it his view as Minister of Finance that the government cannot afford to implement this program at this time? Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that no question that he has put to me so far has made me blink. The hon. gentleman ought to refer to the address my colleague made to the federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers; the government's position is contained fully in that document. A final supplementary question. I am in fact referring to an earlier speech made by that minister in November, when he documented the problems of the poor in our society. I conclude with this question. Is it the minister's view, as Minister of Finance, that the $500 million only that the federal government would have to put up under changes to the Canada Assistance Plan -- which would be the best route to take in this regard -- are beyond the fiscal capabilities of this government? Mr. Speaker, my view was expressed by my colleague at the conference. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Could he tell the House whether the government is considering generalizing the policy already partially established of hiring private contractors to do the work usually done by the public service employees now on strike and, second, does he consider normal that the same work in the same department is paid at different levels depending on whether the employee belongs to the public service or works for a private contractor, in which case his salary is much higher? Mr. Speaker, in cases where external help is required, we must take into account the fact that these employees are hired only temporarily, and sometimes even for a few hours or a few days, and their salary basis cannot be the same as that which applies to people who work throughout the year. When employees are on strike, as they are now, it is not government policy to hire staff from the private sector to replace them. However, when public servants are illegally on strike, I believe the government is entitled to replace them by people from the private sector. Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question that is supplementary to the earlier questions asked of the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that a confidential report prepared by the federal pay research bureau has indicated that the workers in the general labour and trades group are paid at a lower rate than those in comparable positions in the private sector, and because it has been intimated that unless these anomalies are corrected the public service will face a severe labour shortage within the next decade, will the Minister indicate whether or not he would consider using this report as a basis for further negotiations, in an effort to resume settlement talks in the public interest? Mr. Speaker, we do not accept the premise contained in this question. I think there is no problem at all at this time getting employees to work for the government. A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether or not he is, in fact, in possession of a confidential report from the pay research bureau which indicates that members of the general labour and trades group are paid at a rate substantially lower than or not comparable with the general prevailing rates in the given zones and areas across the country? Mr. Speaker, I am told that this statement is incorrect. Sometimes we are not talking about the same kind of employees. If we are wrong in some instances then we will be willing to correct those errors, but I am told that there are no such errors at the moment. Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that posed to the Minister of Finance by the Leader of the Opposition regarding his pursuit of voluntary restraints and guidelines. Is the 28 per cent increase in federal spending represented by the estimates that have now been put before the House within government guidelines, and if not is the minister trying to tell us that he is in the position of imposing restraints on others that he is not prepared to impose on the government? Mr. Speaker, the main estimates tabled today by my colleague the President of the Treasury Board include only authorized expenditures as of this date. I said on budget day, and the President of the Treasury Board repeated today, that in comparing total outlays -- budgetary, non-budgetery, including supplementary estimates, all loans and obligations of the government, the old age assistance plan, unemployment insurance -- the total outlays for 1975-76 over 1974-75 are still estimated to be in the range I projected on budget night. A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister in fact set down guidelines on government spending, and is in fact the current increase in government spending within these guidelines? Mr. Speaker, as the President of the Treasury Board answered, subject to situations we have not contemplated up to this moment, we hope that the projected increases in expenditures as estimated in the budget will be fulfilled. I would refer the hon. gentleman to the statement of the President of the Treasury Board earlier in the session. The description, occupancy date and location required for this space were such that only one building, the nearly completed Bourdignon building in the Marpole area, could possibly qualify, and all other developers were therefore prevented from submitting proposals. I would ask the minister whether he will conduct a thorough investigation into what appears to be a sham advertisement calling for proposals, to the detriment of the taxpayers, especially in view of the fact that the Department of National Revenue had already agreed to lease the Bourdignon building before this advertisement was placed, as evidenced by the statement of government employees that the Income Tax Department in Vancouver would be moving in July of this year into a Marpole building. Mr. Speaker, without agreeing in any way that this is a sham advertisement, I would be glad to look into the matter. Mr. speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board which relates to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, we are getting ready to table out final estimates in the House in the next few days. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, that minister who, when he is not winking and blinking, may be nodding. Mr. Speaker, these were not forgotten, but it will take me some time to explain to the hon. member on an appropriate occasion. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerns a confidential report about the unemployment insurance commission, commissioned by the government at considerable cost to the Canadian taxpayer and submitted by York Advertising Limited of Ottawa. In this report there are very disturbing findings such as that on page eight which refers to "programs we have witnessed appear to be based on some combination of hunches and ad hockery", as well as the observation on page 26 that "the UIC has been considered a dumping ground for incompetents and a career deadend". Order, order! In view of the concern of members of this House about the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the very disturbing implications of this report, will the minister table it forthwith in the House? Mr. Speaker, I will note the hon. member's representations. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he or his department have considered the possibility of averaging the floor price for beef cattle, which he started on August 12, 1974, every six months rather than yearly? Mr. Speaker, we looked at that suggestion and decided such a program would be so hard to administer it would be impossible to put into place. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the winking Minister of Finance whether he has received a telegram from Premier Blakeney requesting "a delay in the passage of the portion of the income tax bill dealing with non-deductibility of royalties until after the first ministers' conference"? In view of the premier's desire to seek an accommodation, I should like to ask the minister whether he is considering that very reasonable suggestion? Mr. Speaker, in the last two days I have been out in Vancouver and I have not seen this particular telegram. I think we have to look at the request with both eyes open, and I do not think it is cause for change. Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer, I should like to ask whether he is not now ready to accept or consider that proposal to delay proclaiming this clause until after the first ministers' conference, again in the interest of confederation and unity? Mr. Speaker, we dealt with this in the committee of the whole during the debate on the income tax bill. At that time I said the answer was no and I repeat it now before the whole House. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since our poultry producers are so literally outraged by massive US chicken imports that this morning in Saint-Damase, in the beautiful riding of Saint-Hyacinthe, some of them set fire to shipments from the United States, can the minister, in cooperation with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, assure that Canadian consumers, and Quebec consumers in particular, will not be the victims once again at the retail price level of that new war between American and Canadian producers. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to talk it over with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture. Considering that our poultry slaughter houses are importing increasing amounts of US chickens to remedy their shortages of fresh chicken, and considering also that the Poultry Producers' Federation is prepared to increase the quotas of our own producers in the event of better control over chicken imports, can the minister state his policy on that, and more particularly could he tell the House whether he intends to intervene, first, at the import level and, second, at the level of his provincial counterparts to develop with them a policy that would be more favourable to our own producers of fresh chicken? The poultry producers have organized themselves, without any national marketing agency, in respect of controls and cut-backs to the extent of 10 per cent in production. They have agreed to that. Without any real guarantee of supply management in respect of such an agency, there is very little I could do as far as controlling imports from another country, at least without getting into what the hon. member has suggested, another so-called trade war. Mr. Speaker, since the minister of State for Urban Affairs has stated it was his intention to monitor the reduction of sales tax on building materials to see that the saving is passed along to the consumer, will he tell the House how this is planned and when it will take effect so we do not have a repetition of the monitoring of the removal of the sales tax on clothing, in respect of which stores are notified in advance of any inspection? Mr. Speaker, as I stated in the House before, this is carried out by the materials monitoring group of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The indications so far are that the sales tax reduction is being passed on. I am never satisfied, nor are they, and there are continuing inspections and reports which are being accelerated so they will come in more frequently than normal. I am keeping a close eye on the situation. Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate to the House when we can expect a full report on the effects to the consumer of the reduction in the sales tax on building materials? Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated at this point having a full report. I want current reports on a very regular basis so that we can monitor continually. After a reasonable period of time, I would be very happy to report on the net impact of this. As the hon. member can appreciate, the net impact at any given time is difficult to follow. However, by constant monitoring and questioning we are able to isolate those areas where it is being passed on, as well as those areas where it might not be passed on, and that is where we have to concentrate. My supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister indicate to the House whether or not he has received the results of the national survey mentioned last November on sales tax monitoring? Mr. Speaker, there were delays in the compilation of the information provided by importers and manufacturers. I hope to have that report by the end of the month. Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. There seems to be some difference in view between himself and the Minister of Finance about certain aspects of the anti-inflation program. Could he tell us who is in charge of this program of the government, is this program directed by the Prime Minister or is it in the charge of a particular minister? The hon. gentleman has tried to point out differences between the Minister of Finance and myself but he has not succeeded. It has been a lamentable failure. I am very happy to have my colleague here to affirm the policy of the government with respect to this and other matters. In so far as the anti-inflation program is concerned, this is a joint undertaking of several ministers. If it is under any general direction, it is under the direction of the Prime Minister. Of course, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has a very important part to play because he is one of the most valuable citizens in this country. Hear, hear! It may not be very reassuring but it at least has been some clarification for the Acting Prime Minister to have expressed some doubt as to whether the program is under any general direction. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there is any way in which he can convince any reasonable person that the statement made by the Minister of Finance with regard to COLA contracts on January 28 bears any resemblance to the interpretation which he tried to place upon it in the House recently. The hon. gentleman will have noticed that the Minister of Finance has agreed entirely with my interpretation. Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the agricultural issues have not been dealt with in the budget speech this year, in spite of the continuing difficulties in that basic sector of the Canadian economy, could the minister advise the House whether he intends to require special subsidies to cope immediately with the situation, or whether he will wait for the eventually forthcoming supplementary budget of the Minister of Finance to obtain the money required for appropriate action? Mr. Speaker, I have been successful in getting money for agriculture for any legitimate reason nearly any time I wanted, and I am sure that is a known fact. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. In view of the lack of fodder, particularly hay, in eastern Canada, whose prohibitive price is $100 a ton, and considering that farmers have lots of difficulties in getting some because there in no more supply, could the minister tell the House whether he will take the necessary action to import hay from the United States or elsewhere to allow cattle feeding? Mr. Speaker, my department and I have done our best to ensure that there is not that kind of shortage. Up to date, I have not received any official request from the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, the commitments that were made in June are in the process of being fulfilled. One was that the Boeing 707 repair overhaul would be undertaken in Winnipeg, and that is taking place. Another commitment was that there would be a larger AIr Canada presence, and there has been an annoucement of a new hangar which is to be constructed. At the same time we set as an objective the creation of 800 jobs. So far as CAE employees are concerned, every attempt is being made to find work for them at Transair or elsewhere, but particularly at Transair where Boeing 707 work is being done. At the time when that statement was made we were mainly concerned with having Boeing 707 work done in Winnipeg so that we could establish a major repair and overhaul capability in that city. Now that has been achieved. He was responsible for the contract and he gave it to Transair. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. I understood the minister to say that a new hangar is under construction in Winnipeg. I wonder if he could inform the House for whom the hangar is being constructed. Where is it being constructed? I do not believe I said it was under construction. It has, however, been announced by the chairman of Air Canada, the names of architects have been announced, and it is a project that is clearly underway. However, I am certain that the actual construction has not started. Could the minister tell us if the Minister of Supply and Services has found any further contracts for CAE in Winnipeg? I cannot answer on behalf of the Minister of Supply and Services, but of course there is other work and that company is capable of doing the work, and I expect that they will have additional work in the months ahead. Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the government House leader. Having regard to the salutary spanking which the parliamentary secretary gave to ministers of the Crown earlier-- Hear, hear! It was a most unique occasion -- I have never witnessed it before. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, I have already done so. I have already spoken to my colleagues. I have been told by them, however, and I have examined the question as well, that there are some questions being put on the order paper-- That are embarrassing. Not that are embarrassing but that involve an enormous expenditure of public funds. When questions are asked, I think they should be put in a form that can be answered quickly and with a minimum of expense. Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to one of the ministers who was spanked, the Minister of Transport. I have every sympathy for a minister who is spanked by a parliamentary secretary -- but then every minister has my sympathy. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport to tell us what is the reason for the delay over months -- and on the last occasion over two weeks -- in answering a question regarding one of our former colleagues, the Honourable Mr. Pickersgill. There is no difficulty there and an answer should not take months. Why the delay? Mr. Speaker, sometimes in life there are coincidences which nobody can foresee. At the very moment the hon. gentleman was asking this question, I was signing the answer in my book. Mr. Speaker, such an unusual act on the part of the government deserves the highest commendation. Those that see wrongdoing and finally act deserve every commendation. How long has it been in your book? Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On January 24 the minister indicated in the House that a review of the dairy industry had been completed and that an index formula for milk pricing had been finalized. I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to make this formula available for study to the dairy farmers of Canada, producer associations, provincial marketing boards and other interested groups in the industry prior to the implementation of such a program? Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the exact verbiage I used on the date the hon. member mentions. Did you say garbage? But a policy has been developed after a long period of study with input from all the organizations and the provinces. We will have final discussions with the people most concerned, the dairy farmers of Canada, before the final formula is presented to the industry. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the minister's intention to introduce this program on or about April 1, the beginning of the normal dairy year? Mr. Speaker, I hope to have it at least by that time but sooner if at all possible so that people can understand the policy and it can be explained to them before it is actually put into use. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Is it government policy that effective March 3 or soon thereafter the Post Office prestamped envelopes will no longer carry the image of the Queen and if so, what will be represented? Mr. Speaker, we have been issuing stamps for many, many years that do not carry the image of the Queen. We will carry the image of the Queen in future years, however, as we have done in the past as well as, who knows, some day pictures of past Postmasters General. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. On january 24, my colleague the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo brought to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister the tragic death of a young boy in Hamilton as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The vehicle was driven by one Thomas Martin. At that time the hon. member asked whether the government was prepared to serve notice on the government of the United States that it should amend the extradition treaty to ensure that the charge of criminal negligence was included. The minister said that this particular point was not raised when he signed the last extradition treaty but that he would take the situation under consideration. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Department of External Affairs is consulting with the Department of Justice on this question. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Mr. Speaker a question for the Minister of Agriculture. A lot of young farmers have been encouraged to enter the cattle industry as a result of the government's policy of making loans available under programs such as the Farm Credit Corporation and the Farm Improvement Loans. There is now a slump in the cattle industry, however, as a result of the government's inactivity. Is the government now prepared to defer interest payments or reorganize the Farm Credit Corporation so that as much of the industry as is possible can be salvaged? Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that the government did lend some money to help young farmers enter the cattle industry, but I think the hon. member should remember that the provinces did much more to encourage this than the federal government. Any reasonable or responsible request for deferral by any farmer who finds himself in difficulty, will be dealt with sympathetically by the Farm Credit Corporation. A supplementary question. Inasmuch as some of the programs have been "stop loss" rather than "make profit", has the government given any consideration to picking up the tab for interest on Farm Improvement Loans? Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have given any concentrated consideration to this but I would be only too willing to discuss it with my colleague who has jurisdiction over the Farm Improvement Loan program, the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture who on Monday night indicated some willingness to table the telegrams sent to him concerning the operations of CEMA by the provincial ministers of agriculture. There are indications that CEMA is in very bad financial trouble and is not getting the necessary co-operation from the provinces. In view of the urgency of the matter, I wonder whether the minister would table the correspondence so that either the Standing Committee on Agriculture or the House could see exactly what the situation is in regard to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency? Mr. Speaker, during the course of debate the other night I reported to the House that most of the provinces had committed themselves to paying the money. Some of them have paid it. I would say that CEMA is in a better financial position than it has ever been. We are following the proper course, asking permission from the senders of the telegrams, the provincial ministers, to table the telegrams in this House. I hope to have that authority shortly. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last Friday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the Minister of Labour if mediation services would be assisting in the serious labour problems of the Air Canada financial branch in Winnipeg. The minister announced that he would look into the matter and report early this week. I wonder if the minister can now report. Mr. Speaker, I think that particular altercation took place in December and was resolved, although the basic problem has not been resolved. I understand Air Canada indicated they are prepared to open up the agreement and discuss classifications. We are awaiting a reply from the union. This was my information as of a day or two ago, but I will check again. Orders of the day. When the committee rose last evening, clause 69 was under consideration. On clause 69. Mr. Chairman, I would draw the minister's attention to subclause (3) of clause 69. My remarks may touch on clause 70 as well. The minister received a letter from a gentleman living in British Columbia who said that he cannot work because of a heart condition. At the age of 50 he cannot work at all. The impact of the income tax law is such that he finds himself paying about ten times the amount of tax paid by others who, because of the peculiar wording of the act, are entitled to various exemptions and deductions. I shall refer to the letter but not reveal the name of the writer. The letter is dated February 3, 1975. The writer says that he wrote to the minister a year ago complaining that a person under age 65 who is forced to retire on pension for medical reasons is victimized by our tax laws. He pointed out as follows: --a person such as myself, forced to retire from the public service at age 50 because of severe cardiac condition and unable to work, received no tax relief. I can claim neither the age deduction nor the disability deduction because I am not confined to bed or a wheelchair. The writer of the letter then suggested: Canada Pension paid on a disability basis prior to age 65 should be tax deductible... the disability deduction should be allowed those who are unemployable on medical certificate even though their condition does not confine them to bed or wheelchair. The minister replied is part as follows: --there are, of course, situations where an individual cannot be gainfully employed because of disability although he is not confined to bed or wheelchair. It would be difficult, however, to distinguish in the tax law between the varying degrees of disability or incapacity, some of which would preclude gainful employment, others of which would not seriously impair earning ability. This B.C. constituent comments on the minister's letter and says: The validity of this view escapes me. In my own case, I have been medically certified by the Department of National Health and Welfare as unable to work both for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canada Pension Plan. What more proof can be required to establish disability? There are many who are not yet 65 but who for various reasons cannot work. The income tax law does not provide relief for such people who through no fault of their own are placed in an awkward position. The writer of the letter, whose 1974 income was $6,312, compares his position with that of a person aged 65 or more. According to his calculations, he pays $579.40 in tax whereas the pensioner with whom he compares himself pays only $53.60 I wonder if the minister can explain this anomaly. What is the reason for it? Will the minister consider reviewing the pertinent sections of the act in order to provide relief for people caught in such unfortunate circumstances? Mr. Chairman, I remember the particular case to which the hon. member refers. We do receive letters of that sort. I have said on other occasions that the income tax law is a global law and it is difficult to gear it to individual circumstances. We have extended, during the last three years, deductions and exemptions for the handicapped. The clause presently before the committee will further extend them. When I received the letter, which speaks for itself, there was no way to draw a line or to provide significantly different relief for that particular case without extending the law into areas in which its administration might be open to abuse. We are continually studying these cases but we must draw the line somewhere. We have extended decuctions and exemptions again in the budget, as is evident if one studies this and other clauses. I do not have anything to add to what I said in the letter which the hon. gentleman quoted. Mr. Chairman, could the minister hazard a guess as to how many people find themselves in circumstances similar to those outlined by the writer of the letter? No, Mr. Chairman, we could not even hazard a guess. These relieving amendments usually come about because of letters which I or the minister of the day may receive from individual Canadian citizens or from their members of parliament. Or amendments are introduced as a result of the representations of members of parliament. That is how the current increases or extensions of deductions and exemptions have found their way into the bill. We receive correspondence from various parts of the country. At the moment, however, the type of case illustrated by the hon. member is not so widespread as to justify, in our opinion, remedial relief through the tax law rather than by other means. Can the minister give the committee an estimate of the number of inquiries he has had concerning this type of problem? I cannot answer precisely, but there have not been very many. Mr. Chairman, may I raise another question which is not related directly to clause 69? Can the minister say whether his department is considering giving income tax relief to those who must wear artificial limbs? As I understand it, they are now caught in the position where this necessary item is rapidly increasing in price and there is no provision for any type of deduction in respect of the cost of an artificial limb. Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling, as does the assistant deputy minister, that it already qualifies as a medical expense. I would like the minister to expand on this. That was my impression until I started to check into it. I was speaking not to the departmental people but to tax consultants, and I could not get confirmation that it was deductible -- certainly not 100 per cent. Mr. Chairman, we will give the hon. member the answer to that question as soon as we look at the regulations. It is a medical expense. We will get the section in a minute. Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to explain fully subclause (5) on page 178. I would like to know the purport of this provision. Considering the high unemployment situation, how does the minister define the words "perpetual poverty"? Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to do my best to satisfy the inquiry of the hon. member. This amendment makes a relieving change to subsection 110(2) of the act under which a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of perpetual poverty may deduct from his income an amount equal to his earned income. Earned income is generally income from employment and business. The deduction equals the income which goes to the order and is not taxable to them. Earned income is generally income from employment and business. Although paid in respect of employment or past employment, superannuation and pension benefits do not form part of the taxpayer's earned income. This amendment, therefore, provides that a taxpayer who is a member of a religious order and has taken a vow of perpetual poverty may deduct superannuation and pension benefits as well as earned income from his income, the reason being that superannuation benefits are not within the general definition of "income" under the Income Tax Act. This amendment will result in a retired member of a religious order being put in the same taxation position as a member who continues to work in a religious order. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how to figure out "perpetual poverty". There are a lot of people in perpetual poverty vis-à-vis a lot of other things. How do you define that? Does a person have to belong to a religious order to get in on this deal? He or she has no future right to that income. For many years it has been recognized under the Income Tax Act that the deduction from income is equal to what he or she earns by way of employment in a hospital or school. The money is transferred directly to the order. He or she does not get it and therefore pays no tax on it. However, since the definition of "income" within the act does not include superannuation benefits, this is an extension to ensure that such benefits are now included. If a person is entitled to superannuation or pension benefits, apparently through the order, he must have obtained vested rights in superannuation or some type of pension. He would not, then, be perpetually in poverty. His employer, the hospital or what have you, may have contributed to that pension plan. The man or woman has disclaimed a right in it and has assigned it to the order. The amendment provides that he or she is not taxable on it, in the same way that no tax is paid by those who have taken a perpetual poverty vow during their working lives. There is nothing revolutionary about this. It is just a fact that now in hospitals, schools, and so on, members of religious orders who work for nothing, assigning their money to the order, have an extension of that principle upon retirement. In his reply the minister indicated that he felt there had not been a sufficient number of representations made to provide for remedial action in this regard. However, in a letter which he wrote earlier, the minister said this had not been brought about because it would be difficult to distinguish, under the tax law, between varying degrees of disability or incapacity. In other words, he stated previously in writing that no changes had been made because of the difficulty of applying medical standards to this problem. He now seems to be saying there are not enough representations to justify remedial legislation. Which of the two reasons does the minister now wish to put forward to these people? Madam Chairman, that is not what I said. I asked the hon. member for York-Simcoe how many cases there were. I said there had not been many representations. My reason for excluding this type of deduction is the one I gave to the person who wrote to the hon. member for York-Simcoe, namely, that it would be very difficult to draw a line to include this type of deduction in a global statute such as the Income Tax Act which applies to Canadians generally. I would advise the hon. member for York-Simcoe that I now have the section which allows as a medical expense an artificial limb, iron lung, and so on: it is section 110(1)(c), item (9). Mr. Chairman, I have a question with regard to travel expenses incurred for medical purposes. The case I have in mind concerns dialysis patients who sometimes find it necessary to travel a considerable distance at regular intervals in order to receive treatment. Are such travelling expenses covered in this bill or are they allowed as a medical deduction? We incorporated this provision in the last budget. As a matter of fact, the former member for Skeena, Frank Howard, was particularly interested in this. I am trying to get the particular section. We dealt with this matter in the last bill. Clause agreed to. On clause 70. Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment which I want to withdraw, and I want to substitute another one. There have been several representations, particularly from the hon. member for Duvernay and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, with regard to the definition of "interest" under this exemption. Hon. members will recall that in the budget of May 6, 1974, reinstated by the budget of November 18, 1974, there was a deduction from income of the first $1,000 of interest. The bill reflects that as net interest. The hon. member put it to me that this might militate against farmers who had borrowed by way of mortgage to finance their farm operations. He put it to me that gross interest would be a fairer way of calculating it. We have looked into this question very carefully and I now propose an amendment to clause 70, page 180 of the bill. The amendment I am now proposing will have the effect of eliminating the requirement that the deduction in computing taxable income in respect of interest earned be in respect of net interest. As originally proposed, the interest which could be deducted was limited to the taxpayer's interest income minus the deductible interest expenses which he incurred in the year. This approach was proposed in order to eliminate the possibility that a taxpayer might simply borrow funds to generate interest or dividend income which would be free of tax, while at the same time deducting from his income the cost of borrowing the funds. While I am satisfied that there was good reason for this limitation, it has been drawn to my attention that it created serious difficulties for taxpayers who had borrowed funds for legitimate business purposes and were claiming the interest expenses on the borrowed funds. The taxpayers most affected by this limitation were unincorporated businessmen, unincorporated farmers, members of partnerships and individuals who had borrowed funds to invest in rental housing. The effect of this limitation was to ignore the distinction between what I might term business borrowing and the income generated by what are essentially personal investments unrelated to the carrying on of the business. Under these circumstances, rather than penalize these taxpayers I am proposing this amendment which will ignore interest expenses for the purpose of the interest deduction and will give the deduction for the first $1,000 of gross interest or dividend income. The reason I have presented this amendment as being effective only for 1975 and subsequent taxation years is to ensure that taxpayers will have their 1974 refund cheques expedited. If a change were to be made effective for 1974, it would mean a delay of at least four weeks, and possibly longer, in sending out refund cheques. This delay would be caused because all the 1974 returns are structured to reflect the net interest concept. Every return which has been processed would have to be redone. The Revenue Canada computer would have to be reprogrammed and every cheque which has been written but not issued pending the passage of Bill C-49 would have to be redone. Having regard to the cost in time, money and inconvenience it appears to be the wiser course to make this amendent effective for 1975. I therefore move: That clause 70 be amended (a) by striking out lines 39 to 49 on page 178; (b) striking out lines 38 to 51 on page 180. This has the effect of converting the definition of net interest to gross interest. I would like to withdraw from the table -- I do not need to withdraw it from the committee because it has not been presented -- the amendment I circulated earlier. Hon. members will now be provided with copies of the amendment I have just moved. Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with matters which are not dealt with in the amendment. I, too, wish to deal with the clause as amended. So do I. Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause 70 embodies the government's proposal to encourage Canadians to save a little more. This is, of course, a welcome concession, a welcome addition to the tax law. The question I wish to put to the minister has to do with a wider difficulty which the world is facing in an economy which is increasingly capital-intensive. Projects undertaken today cost ten times as much as they did only a few years ago. As a result, economists are advising governments to adopt taxation measures which encourage more individuals and companies to save. These small concessions I have mentioned go in the direction of meeting this request by the economists, but they do not even begin to meet the tremendous demand for capital. In the field of energy-related enterprises alone, the United States will in the next 25 years be requiring between $750 billion and $1,000 billion. In Canada, a nation with one-tenth of the wealth of the United States, we expect to be called on to provide $250 billion of capital to meet the needs of energy-related enterprises. If we divided the number of years left in this century into $250 billion, we would find that Canada has to raise $10 billion a year to finance energy-related enterprises alone. This involves an important political issue. We have seen over the last 30 years a large segment of the industrial and resource field get into the hands of people in other countries who could provide the capital needed to enable development to take place in that period. Today, the investment needs in the field of energy alone are ten times greater. There is no point our looking any more to the companies to which we could at one time turn for help in developing Canadian industries; demand for capital is now worldwide. I suggest that if the minister is to respond in any realistic way to Canadian needs, he will have to revise his parameters. Only a certain proportion of income can be saved; the rest has to be used in meeting living costs. All those who can save because the family is raised, because they already possess their cars and television sets, must be encouraged to change their habits from those of a consuming society to those of a saving society. Before you can get them to save, you have to give them inducements to save, with the knowledge that at the end of the saving period they will still be able to enjoy the value of their money. We are faced with the fact that we must increase the amount of savings in Canada on the part of individuals, on the part of institutions that specialize in savings, so as to meet our capital requirements. Unless we do this, we will end up by turning this country over to outside investors who do not necessarily put Canadian interests first. I put it to the minister that even these large companies cannot cope with this situation. Companies of the world have always relied on the generation of enough earnings and profits to provide the capital flow that will enable them to pay some dividends to their shareholders and to use the balance for new investment. Using the Canadian figures that the NDP are fond of quoting, the profits, for example, of Canadian oil companies are double or triple what they were two years ago. This is true. But if you add up all the profits of the oil companies in Canada, they came to less, at the end of 1974, than one-tenth of our annual need for capital investment in energy-related projects in Canada. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has warned the Canadian nation that we need $101 billion over the next ten years, which is $10 billion a year, the figure which I have quoted. Yet the Minister of Finance of the same government apparently is not listening to this warning. We must revise our whole tax structure to put the emphasis on saving, not on consuming. This is a task all nations in the western world will have to undertake during the next 25 years. My question to the minister is this: Is the recommendation of the Carter royal commission, now eight years old -- namely, that we should end double taxation in respect of Canadians who buy equities in Canadian industry -- going to be adopted? As the committee probably remembers, the Carter royal commission recommended we should not tax twice Canadians who invest in their own country; we should only tax them once. However, Canadians who need capital desperately if they are ever going to own their own country are still being doubly taxed if they invest in Canadian resource industries. The first recommendation of the Carter Commission was that we should integrate corporation tax with personal income tax so as to remove this double taxation. I ask the minister whether this idea is dead. The alternative recommendation was to pass these taxes through to the individual shareholder of the company and make provision for giving him a credit on his individual tax form. I should like to know whether this concept of Carter is dead, in view of the great need for savings in Canada. Mr. Chairman, the proposal for integration was not quite as the hon. gentleman set forth. Mr. Carter proposed integration to eliminate so-called double taxation by removing the tax on corporations and transferring funds through taxation of individual Canadians on every source of income. Integration was rejected as an option in tax reform and in the statute that was approved as of January 1, 1972. So one could say that integration is not recognized in the statute or in the budget. That is my point, Mr. Chairman. Neither in the budget of 1972 nor in the statement of 1972 was it recognized; nor is the pass through to the shareholder recognized. I would ask the minister this question: In view of the fact that the situation in 1972 is not the situation of 1975 -- $1 billion a year covered most of our capital rquirements in the energy related industries three years ago, whereas today we need $10 billion a year -- is this Carter proposal dead entirely, or is the minister still willing to consider it for some future budget? Of course, Mr. Chairman, the gross-up of the dividend credit is a type of partial integration which is available to the shareholder even if the company is not in a tax position or because of deductions does not pay tax. We recognized some of the necessity for saving in this budget, as we did in earlier budgets. For example, there is the $1,000 interest exemption, the $1,000 dividend exemption that is taken on top of the gross-up. Then there is the registered home ownership savings plan which permits deduction of amounts up to a maximum of $10,000 for each partner of the marriage or, if both are working, up to $20,000 cumulatively. Then there is the capital cost allowance extension without a terminal date, the two-year write-off, and for manufacturers and processors the 40 per cent tax rate. In other words, Mr. Chairman, over the past two or three years we have made some attempts to arrive at a reallocation that is acceptable. I do not argue with the thesis advanced by the hon. gentleman that in tax statutes we must weigh the balance of convenience against the balance of philosophical assumption as between incentives on one hand and equity to the taxpayer on the other. So incentive is only part of the application of a tax statute. But I do not quarrel with his general thesis, namely, that we must encourage and inject more savings into our economy if we are to respond to our capital requirements. I thank the minister because that is exactly what I have been saying. All the techniques that the minister has listed are movements in the right direction. But we must do so far more rapidly than has been the case to date, even in this improved budget as compared with previous budgets. In effect, I am asking the minister to keep this option open. Even if the principle of equity disappears in the process, we must try to emphasize savings. Most tax money which is returned to the consumer encourages more spending, which is the currently accepted way to revitalize the economy. But this is not necessarily the right approach over the long term when we have to increase the gross capital stock of the country. I will come later to the other proposal of more rapid velocity flow, but I should like the committee to understand that I support any proposal in the budget that provides incentive to save, even in small amounts. We must start right away to put emphasis on changing the habits of Canadians and get them to devote 10, 15 or 20 per cent of their incomes to savings. This we must do if we are to build up the capital pool that we need in this country. Mr. Chairman, my question to the finance minister concerns interest income deductions. For 1974 a husband may claim up to $1,000 tax-free income a year, but may not make any claim in regard to interest received by his spouse. I should like to ask the minister if he is contemplating any change this year, or will he consider making a change next year to allow the spouse's interest to be claimed? Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is right in his assumption that the interest deduction is only available to the person receiving the interest against that person's income tax. If the wife and the husband both have interest income, each can use the separate interest exemption against his or her income, but they cannot transfer that exemption. I did make one exception to that rule in the budget, namely, with respect to couples 65 years of age and over where one partner to the marriage is receiving income, that partner can use not only the additional exemption for those 65 years of age and over which is applicable to himself or his wife but also the exemption available to the other partner if that partner is 65 years of age or over. I also asked the minister whether he was planning to make any change this year in respect of this interest. No, I would not count on it, Mr. Chairman. --it has now come to the writer's attention from the Vancouver daily Province that if an individual owns an apartment building and has a mortgage or bank loan against the property and consequent interest charges thereon, then the interest charges must be set off against the $1,000 interest earned allowance. In view of the following this would not appear to be fair or reasonable. 1) The mortgage and bank loan has probably been set up for some time and was not done in order to take advantage of the budget proposals. 2) The purpose was to produce investment income the net of which is taxable. The writer therefore is of the opinion that mortgage or bank interest paid on this type of investment and interest paid in connection with operating a business should not be considered and should not have to be deducted from the $1,000 allowance. In addition, and individual may have retained Canada Savings Bonds and used them as collateral for the bank loan rather than cash them in. It is to be presumed that the federal government did not want bonds cashed in or they would not have made them so attractive. I wonder if the minister is considering this type of complaint. Mr. Chairman, I think we dealt with matter that in the amendment the committee just passed, namely, that the interest is now considered for 1975 and subsequent years on a gross basis rather than a net interest basis. This meets the problem the hon. member has just described. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions I should like to put to the minister for the purpose of clarification. The first is in respect of page 178 and the amendment to 110.1(1) (b) (ii), the taxpayer's grossed-up dividends for the year. I note that is defined on page 180, but I find myself at a bit of a loss to understand what exactly is the taxpayer's grossed-up dividends for the year. Is it the dividends increased by the one-third which the shareholder has to declare as earned dividends for the year? That being so, I wonder why the nomenclature has been changed, because normally when one receives a statement of dividends if refers to the taxable amount of dividends. Why is that term not used to simplify matters for simple souls like myself who have all the difficulty in the world in trying to work out their income tax, rather than using a new term, that is, "the taxpayer's grossed-up dividends"? My second question is related to the extraordinary practice adopted, and to the comments of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who indicated the need for savings. Has that been lost in history? I got the preamble but I did not get the question. My question relates to this grossing up of dividends and the desire -- in fact, the need in this society of ours -- to save. A person who has saved and draws dividends is penalized for saving because he has to declare more revenue than he actually receives -- one-third more as far as dividends are concerned -- and he has to pay taxes on that extra income. I know this is not new in the bill, but it has been puzzling me for many years. I have received numerous complaints from people who say they refuse to sign the statement that they have received this income, because they have not received it. I see the minister blinking, winking and sniggering, but this is one of those things that ministers do. People who have put a good deal of effort into laying aside money in order to earn an income when the moment comes to retire are now penalized for having done so. About a month ago I made a plea for those members of our society who are over 65. I maked this plea for all members of our society who are still trying to save and are being taxed on income they are not receiving. There is a tax rebate, but it still does not bring the dividends down to the actual amount received by the bondholder or stockholder. The story behind this gross-up is a long one. The House went into it in great detail when we were discussing tax reform. In respect of income against which the tax rate is 40 per cent or less, the taxpayer in Canada who receives dividend income gets an advantage from the gross-up and that advantage encourages savings. The hon. gentleman ought to recall that the amount of the gross-up is also reflected in the tax credit against taxes. It is reflected against what? The taxpayer gets a bigger tax credit because of the gross-up until his income reaches the stage where he would be paying at the 40 per cent rate. Until that point the gross-up is an advantage to him or her. I must say that this baffles me. Perhaps my mathematics are not as good as those of officials of the Department of Finance. I will have to take the minister's word for it, because I do not follow this. I think the best thing I can do for the hon. gentleman is to send him a letter in which I will outline the gross-up provision. It has caused confusion, and I am sure I receive as many letters about it as the hon. member. I will set it forth in a letter. I would be very happy if the minister would do that. I should like to ask one more question for clarification. Again, this relates to page 178 and the $1,000. Let us take the hypothetical case of a person who spends up to the hilt of his income but has an income which is taxable. Can he claim the $1,000 whether he saves or not? The clause reads: For the purpose of computing the taxable income for a taxation year of an individual... there may be deducted from his income for the year an amount equal to the lesser of (a) $1,000, and-- But that has been amended. In other words, you claim either $1,000 of interest or dividend income or whatever your interest or dividend income was up to $1,000. So it is only interest or dividend income. You should have said "the lesser of". That is right. It is your actual interest or dividend income up to $1,000. I am sorry, but I found it very confusing to read, and I am sure that those of us who within the next month or two will be filling in our income tax forms will find it even more difficult. I have another question with regard to page 179, the recurrence of paragraph (2) in this case, and page 181, section 110.2. The recurring paragraph (2) again lists those elements which may not be included, such as, "For the purposes of this section, interest shall not include any amount," etc. Presumably the section is 110.1 -- or is it 110.2? On page 179 the section is 110.1. It refers back? Are these the exclusions? That is right. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words of thanks to the minister and express my satisfaction, and that of all my colleagues who made representations to him, and introduced the amendment which has just been moved and passed; this amendment will obviously be advantageous for a special group, for which I have a soft spot, the farmers, and of course the small investors. I also wish to congratulate and thank the minister. The clause which authorizes an exemption of $1,000 in investment income meets the request I have made repeatedly, not only to this minister but also to his predecessors in past years as well as to the right hon. Prime Minister. I am personally very happy to see that this is now becoming part of our legislation, and that Canadians will be encouraged to save for their old age, to take care of themselves. However, I should like the minister to explain to the House what interpretation applies to credit unions, savings unions and other similar Quebec savings and investment groups: will their members be authorized to deduct the interest on their investments in these savings groups, under this new exemption? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first I should like to make a brief comment on the very human reply made by the Minister of Finance to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich a few minutes ago when he said that these words mean "your interest up to $1,000." This is very simple, is it not? Why cannot that language be used in a thousand other places? I am right with you. Why cannot that simple language be used in income tax legislation and pension legislation? Yesterday we had before us a bill to amend a dozen different superannuation acts, and that unclear language appears all the way through it -- "the lesser of" this and that. When one looks at it, one must translate it into double negatives and go back again, but the minister himself can stand up and in a split second say that what it means is "your interest up to $1,000." I was glad to see the mandarin sitting in front of the minister laugh as he did. I hope he got the hint. The mandarin sitting in front of me was smiling because this was drafted by the Department of Justice. But the Minister of Finance used to be the Minister of Justice. Why did he not do something about this when he was there? We are now on clause 70 which runs from page 178 to page 185. It does quite a few things, but in the main it does two things: it provides for a $1,000 interest deduction from one's taxable income which applies to the taxation year 1974, and it provides for the deductibility of $1,000 pension income which will apply to the taxation year 1975. My friends to the right have already expressed their welcome acceptance of the $1,000 interest deduction, and I join with others in saying that this is fine for those who have interest income and can get this extra advantage. I say the same thing with respect to the deduction that is to be allowed for pension income which will apply in the taxation year 1975, with which taxpayers will be coping when they complete their returns in April of 1976. I say, on behalf of persons over 65, and the pensioners under 65 in some cases who will benefit from this, that for all of them it will be very welcome. The statistics back up the percentage I just gave. There are about 1,800,000 Canadians of 65 and over who draw old age security, and more than half of those who draw old age security also draw the guaranteed income supplement. If they are drawing the guaranteed income supplement, it means they have little or no other income. The guaranteed income supplement is already non-taxable, so I submit that it is not a far-out estimate that about half of our senior citizens 65 and over already pay no income tax, so this benefit -- which is welcomed by those who do pay tax; by those who have savings, to use the language of my friends to the right -- does not apply to those persons who should be remembered but whom this minister has forgotten. The minister may want to tell me that this is one of the budget bills and is not a bill in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. But I remind him that on more than one occasion when an election was ensuing, budget speeches told us of improvements that were going to be made in the pensions of senior citizens and others. The minister is smiling and acknowledging that he has done this himself. I say to the minister that if he is really concerned about the income position of our senior citizens, he should be matching these income tax deductions with an increase in the basic amount of old age security so that improving the position of senior citizens will be put into effect across the board and will not apply to only half or less than half of those who are in that category. I hope the minister will comment on that. The minister said earlier today that his views were expressed at the conference of provincial health ministers by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to a guaranteed annual income. As I said to my colleague when he made that reply, "That is what bothers me". It was the minister's answer on that that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had to make. He is in a pretty key position as keeper of the treasury. I should like to hear from him how he managed to forget the other 50 per cent of senior citizens. My friend from Esquimalt-Saanich wants to go further than the Minister of Finance in relieving those over 65 of income tax. If he can carry that through, that is fine, but even that program, no matter how much you provide income tax deductibility for senior citizens, will be of no help to those who do not receive enough income to pay any income tax at all. Mr. Chairman, there is another question I want to put to the minister which is quite unrelated to what I have been talking about, but it will save me jumping up and down and perhaps when the minister replies he will deal with it as well. At the top of page 183 of Bill C-49, there are some words that indicate what happens with reference to this $1,000 pension deduction in the case of a taxpayer and a spouse. The minister was good enough to give a simple answer to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I wonder if he will give me an equally simple answer as to what the words at the top of page 183, lines 1 to 20, really mean. Mr. Chairman, public pensions and the Canada Pension Plan now have an index system to a certain extent. We have indexed the guaranteed income supplement and the old age pension to protect people 65 and over against the erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar. This is to protect those citizens who have saved or contributed to non-public, private pension plans, including most of the workingmen and women in this country. I think we are putting them in a position where the erosion of what they might have otherwise expected from their pensions by reason of inflation over the last 18 months is somewhat compensated by rendering the first $1,000 free of tax; in other words, putting the workingmen and women of this country, particularly those who have private pension contracts with employers, in the same position as those with public pension plans. The hon. gentleman also asked about the exception that I mentioned to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when he inquired whether the $1,000 interest exemption was transferrable from one spouse to another. I said it was not, and the only exception to that was the exemption against income tax given to everybody of 65 and over. Obviously, the exemption can only be an exemption against income, and in the situation of most married couples 65 and over, it is only one of the couple receiving income against which the exemption can be used. As additional relief for couples 65 and over, the spouse who files an income tax return because he or she has income can use as an exemption not only the extra $1,000 but also the exemption available to the spouse which the spouse would not be able to use otherwise because there was no income available. That is the age exemption? I appreciate the fact that the minister is making it clear that when there is only one taxpayer of two persons in a marriage, that taxpayer can claim the 65 or over age exemption for both parties. What I see at the top of page 183, however, has to do with the $1,000 pension income on top of the age and other exemptions. What I am asking is, if there is a taxpayer who already gets the $1,000 extra exemption because he is over 65, and another $1,000 because his spouse is over 65, and if he has pension income of over $1,000 and so does his spouse, do both of them get the extra $1,000? No, Mr. Chairman, only the spouse who files the return. In other words, the $1,000 pension income is not transferrable. If the other spouse has other sources of income, that exemption will be available. The hon. gentleman stated the case correctly for the 65 and over exemption, but there is no cumulative privilege for the $1,000 pension. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister is satisfying me as easily as he satisfied the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Looking at the language at the top of page 183, it reads: (5) Where the spouse of a taxpayer (a) has attained the age of 65... has received pension income in the year... the taxpayer may, in addition to the amount, if any, deducted by him... deduct an amount equal to the amount, if any, by which the lesser of (c) $1,000, and (d) the spouse's pension income or qualified pension income, as the case may be, for the year exceeds The minister just said it is not transferrable at all, that if one spouse is the taxpayer he claims only the $1,000 pension income exemption, but this clause seems to say there is something in addition that he can deduct. My unprofessional reading of this leads me to believe he can deduct something, but I cannot figure out what it is. Surely the minister is not right in saying that this clause provides there can be no additional deduction when the words I have just read say he may deduct such and such. What is that such and such? Mr. Chairman, we will look into that question. Mr. Chairman, may we just wait a minute so there can be communication with those who know? I hope my point is clear. The minister has said there can be no extra deductibility, yet the words at the top of page 183 seem to suggest there can be deductibility in addition to what the taxpayer has already claimed. Is that true? I just want to make sure this is right, Mr. Chairman. I think the question deserves to be answered. While that is being done, Mr. Chairman, may I pose another question to the Minister of Finance? In doing so I want at the outset to admit and declare a conflict of interest. You are not that old. Let me say at the outset also that having declared the conflict of interest in what I am going to raise, if the deduction which I think ought to be allowed is granted, I will not claim it when I file my income tax return. I am not putting on any halo; I just want to do what is right. You have never taken your halo off. If Moses could deduct it, why couldn't you? Are there any other members here? The International Typographical Union has a pension plan which is in some difficulty. If I retire -- and I say "if" -- there may not be any money in it for me, so that is that. However, questions have been raised in the last year or so about the rights of the members of the International Typographical Union to claim a deduction for the payments they are making into that pension plan, on the ground that it is not the usual type of pension plan but a fraternal benefit arrangement. It was recognized for tax deductibility for many years, but within the last couple of years the plan has been questioned. Actually, the matter has been under dispute or discussion between the union and the Department of National Revenue. It may even be under appeal at present. It strikes me, as I read the language of the bill, that the Department of National Revenue may have to disallow these payments into that plan. But I appeal to the minister to look again at the law or to ask the people of his department to look again at the law. The reason I do so is that the workers, the members of this union, are making contributions which are reasonably substantial. The plan has been set up solely for the purpose of providing pensions for their fellow workers. Pensions are paid each year to those who have retired, out of the funds which come in each year from those who are working. They make these payments in the hope that when they retire they will get their pensions from this same fund. Yet, as I said, the Department of National Revenue is questioning the right of the members of that union to claim deductibility. It was Mr. Abbott many years ago who brought in the provision allowing for deductibility of trade union dues and who separated pension plan payments from other income. This worked well for years. Now there is this trouble. While the Department of National Revenue is considering the matter in terms of the law as it now is, would the minister look at it and consider my contention that the law ought to be changed to cover this kind of case? Mr. Chairman, I will certainly do that. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask another question about the $1,000 exemption which has been included for the express purpose of encouraging savings. Senior citizens receiving the old age pension are not affected by this particular exemption. Yet, if my information is correct, interest from savings does affect entitlement to GIS. Will the minister clarify this point? Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is correct in his interpretation. So in recognition of the incentive and because we want to encourage people to save for themselves, we have allowed this interest exemption from income. It seems to me that those who did not save will receive assistance from society, whereas those who have saved or who have denied themselves will be penalized. I wonder if the minister could consider this particular point and declare that GIS shall not be affected by interest income. Mr. Chairman, I think we have an answer for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. What this transfer does is restore the full exemption despite the pensionable income but does not transfer the pensionable income exemption. Does the hon. member follow? In other words, the pension income is exempted as a deduction from the marital exemption available to the other spouse but the total exemption is not transferred. I hope that is clear. As clear as mud. Would the minister mind repeating it? If the hon. gentleman consults legal counsel, the hon. member for Broadview, I think this will be explained. I will charge a fee. Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has been able to state it in such a way that he can contend he did not make a mistake in what he said previously. At least it is a fact that an exemption of up to $1,000 is available, but it is under a different name. You can do it by the restoration of the marriage exemption, which otherwise would have been lost. If the hon. gentleman wants to put it that way, we were both right. I still think that the wording on page 183, between lines 1 and 20, could be improved. Instead of using wording like "the lesser of" this or that, why cannot the Department of Finance come up with better language, or if Finance cannot do it, why cannot the Department of Justice do it? In another moment I shall defer to someone else. The minister, in replying to my initial comments about his not doing anything for those senior citizens who are not taxable, was trying to make the point that those who live only on OAS and GIS are getting escalation, and he says that all he is trying to do is provide a comparable improvement to those who have other income as well. I point out that those who have other income as well also have their OAS escalated. May I also remind him that this escalation about which he, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and others over there boast so often, is always behind. It never keeps the retired person up with the cost of living, let alone up with the standard of living or in line with the gross national product. If the minister now says that the 45 or 50 per cent of old age people who have other income and who suffer from inflation need restoration of their income or the protection of this $1,000 exemption for taxation purposes, I say to him that the other 45 or 50 per cent who are not in the tax bracket need it even more. I suggest that the minister go back to cabinet and get together with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Let him face this problem and come back some time soon with a substantial increase in the amount of the basic old age security pension. Mr. Chairman, in order to further encourage savings, will the minister consider making interest income non-income for guaranteed income supplement purposes? As I said earlier, the guaranteed income supplement is an income test situation and all sources of income are taken into consideration. We have to provide for the savings incentive by reason of the exemption now before the House. I would like further clarification of the definition of "qualified pension income" which appears on page 182. Unless there have been some changes, qualified pension income is defined as income received by the taxpayer in the taxation year in the amount prescribed, and it goes on with a lot of rubbish which apparently is technical, legal jargon about being received by the taxpayer as a consequence of the death of his spouse. Then on page 183 it refers to the spouse of a taxpayer and benefits received by the taxpayer as a consequence of the death of his spouse, which does not make any sense to me. Mr. Chairman, we cannot follow the hon. member. Is this on page 182? Page 183. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would repeat the question. The last part is "received by the taxpayer as a consequence of the death of his spouse." Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any conflict there. The words on page 182 are: --were read without reference to the words "if before the end of the year the taxpayer has attained the age of 65 years,") received by the taxpayer as a consequence of the death of his spouse. There is no conflict there. One refers to the transfer payment and the other to the type of income that is eligible. It is received in consequence of the death. The other spouse is dead. As I said earlier, there is no problem. One has to do with his receipt of income and what qualifies for the exemption. The other has to do with the transferability of the spouse's eligibility in the 65 and over situation. There is no conflict here. We will look into the point raised by the hon. member, but I assure him we think his concern is unfounded. Mr. Chairman, I would like some clarification. "Pension income" and "qualified pension income" are described on page 182. It does not include Canada Pension Plan income. There may be a situation where a person is in receipt of old age security plus Canada pension and is taxable. He might pay tax on the Canada Pension and old age security pension. This places a person with a combination of Canada Pension and a small private pension in a much better position than someone who is only in receipt of the old age security pension and the Canada Pension. Am I correct in this assumption? If I am correct, this seems to be an unfair situation. Mr. Chairman, the Canada Pension and the old age security amounts are not eligible for this interest deduction because they are publicly financed plans, whereas private pension plans are contributed to by the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, the Canada Pension is contributed to by the taxpayer and by his employer. This seems unfair because the Canada Pension has been contributed to by the taxpayer and his employer, but it is not eligible for any deduction. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that, if not millions then certainly hundreds of thousands of Canadians, will be very happy with a pension deduction, interest deduction and dividend deduction. I want to present the argument to the minister that even though a lot of people will be happy, this measure is not based on equity. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, there are many people who do not have other pensions. My grandparents and many others of their generation in Saskatchewan are basically poor. All they receive is the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. The same is true of the interest and dividend write-offs. I am as concerned about people saving as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. It is possible to write off $1,000 in interest and dividend income. With today's interest rates, you can have savings of $10,000. When you look at $10,000, you are looking at the upper income bracket. The average worker might be able to write off $50, $100 or $200. He will be pleased with that. The word is "incentive." This is where I disagree with the members of the Conservative Party. We would be better off if we spent this money on providing a tax cut. This would create more work and the economy would be in a much better position. But when you have this type of program, again the wealthier persons in our country will get the advantage. I am sure that statistics will bear that out. It will help some working people and some ordinary farmers by letting them write off $50 or $100 per year, but will also help people like, for example, lawyers, accountants, doctors and businessmen who have $8,000 in savings or $10,000 or $20,000 invested in stocks or bonds. I think that is the wrong way of going about it. This is a very attractive little gimmick. As I said at the outset, it will make people very happy, but I don't think will work toward a more egalitarian society; and if you have a more egalitarian society I think society in general will be stronger. You will give people the basic necessities of life and also a greater incentive to work. I do not buy the old argument that you must give those who have money greater incentive so that it will trickle down from the top to the bottom. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said we will need a lot of money in the future to provide energy in this country. I agree: we will need billions and billions of dollars. But I do not think you can raise it this way. There are other ways of raising that money. You will not raise it by providing even greater incentives for those in the top income bracket of this country. I believe in the Carter principle which says that a buck is a buck. Why should I pay tax on my parliamentary indemnity? But if I have a couple of thousand dollars in the bank, why should I not pay tax on the couple of hundred of dollars I get as interest? You could leave it in the bank, because other people need it. Perhaps the business community will borrow that money and reinvest it. I do not buy that type of free enterprise argument. I think you can raise a lot of capital in this country in many other ways, and it strikes me as rather strange that whenever we talk about equity in Canada or whenever we talk about putting more money in the pockets of the little guy, the Conservative Party reacts very violently. I think the way to stimulate the economy is to help the little people in this country and give them more incentive to enjoy life, to be productive in the economy. Therefore, I wish the Minister of Finance would not travel this route. I wish, instead, we would take the funds we have available, provide tax cuts for the ordinary person and low income earner and in that way stimulate the economy for all Canadians. Hear, hear! I have two or three questions to put on this clause. I should like the minister to explain the reasoning behind the requirement that the interest credit to be allowed must be generated within Canada as opposed to sources outside Canada. Undoubtedly the minister has received letters from pensioners in this respect. I have one before me, a letter from a man 80 years old who receives a pension from England. He is 100 per cent disabled as a result of war injuries. He is receiving a First World War pension from Great Britain, and he points out that because of its wording this clause will be of no assistance to him since it will not apply to his interest income from the British Isles. Foreign pension income will qualify for the $1,000 exemption on pension income. Foreign interest will not qualify for the $1,000 interest exemption. The purpose is to encourage savings, and it is to encourage savings in Canada. That is the policy reasoning. Was any consideration given to providing an exemption in a situation of this kind? Could the clause not have been drawn in such a way as to apply to new investment, leaving existing interest, from whatever source, as a basis for the exemption? I thought the bureaucracy liked those nightmares. Coming back to the question of the $1,000 eligibility for both the husband and the wife, let us assume that the wife has the $1,000 interest income: as I understand it, she will be entitled to the $1,000 exemption. What happens to the husband's ordinary claim for deductibility in respect of his wife? Is it lowered by the amount of her interest receipts? Not in 1975; but in 1974, yes. There is no way we can make that adjustment in time for 1974 because some returns have already been filed. But the situation to which I referred will be caught in 1975 and ensuing years? It is the same principle as I discussed with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The interest income of the spouse will not be considered as lowering the marital exemption of the taxpayer. Up to $1,000? Right. The minister has undoubtedly received representations and briefs from the life insurance industry concerning his proposal. In particular, the industry feels it has been let down very badly. The minister's predecessor, Hon. E. J. Benson, at the time he proposed a 15 per cent tax on the investment income of life insurance companies stated that in equity this would be the net income tax position the companies would have to endure. The industry now feels this clause fails to take into account the 15 per cent the companies are required to pay on their investment income and that the pass-through provisions do not properly take into account the fact that those who are saving through life insurance companies have lost the 15 per cent. When the money is finally taken out they are not given a credit for this. I understand the industry has placed alternatives before the minister and has been turned down with regard to all but possibly the alternative which I understand is already in existence in Australia, Great Britain, Germany, Holland and South Africa. Under this proposal, 50 per cent of allowable premiums could be deduced in calculating income, up to a maximum of $1,000 less any amount claimed under the exempt investment income provision. Would the minister indicate his attitude toward this representation, and does he propose to move an amendment to accommodate this point? Mr. Chairman, the matter is still under consideration. As a matter of fact, I signed a letter to Mr. Tuck, general manager of the Association of Life Insurance Companies, today. We allow as an exemption, under the $1,000 exemption feature, that portion of the policy which is surrendered and bears interest. We made that recognition of the interest content in the policy. We are looking at the general 15 per cent on a different basis. As for the deductibility of the premium, the principle is that if it is deductible on the way in, it is taxable on the way out. Insurance policies are not taxable on the way out, and for that reason we have not allowed the deductibility of premiums. Mr. Chairman, I join the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville in registering my objection to the kind of principles in our income tax laws which in my view create a situation where people at the bottom of the taxable income range pay a much greater proportion of their income in tax than do people in the high income brackets. Looking through my files this afternoon I came across an article by David Crane who was with the Ottawa bureau of the Toronto Star for several years. The article was written in 1973 and he analysed some of the information released by the revenue department relating to the year 1971. According to this article, in 1971 there were 265,000 old age pensioners, who reported incomes averaging $4,385. They paid an average federal income tax of $415 each; those in Ontario paid another $114 each in provincial tax. On the other hand, four of the richest people filing tax returns in Canada in 1971 ended up paying no federal or provincial income tax. The combined incomes of these four unidentified persons amounted to almost $1.5 million. Each had annual earnings of at least $200,000. Another four wealthy people, each with an annual income of at least $100,000, reported earnings that added up to $517,000 -- but they also managed to avoid paying income tax. In 1971 there were 204 Canadians with incomes of $25,000 or more who paid no income tax. Of the people with incomes of $25,000 to $50,000 a year, there were 128 who avoided paying income tax of any kind. I should like to know how they do this. I am not talking about people who broke the law, but about people who used provisions placed in the income tax law over many years giving precisely the kind of exemption we are discussing now. The $150 or $200 interest that I will earn because I have some savings bonds I will not pay income tax on, though I do pay the regular rate on my parliamentary indemnity. These included medical claims of $10,000, alimony of $100,000, charitable donations of $9,000 -- they were not very charitable -- and personal exemptions and pension plan contributions of $6,000. The point I am trying to make is that over the years we have made our income tax laws more and more complicated. Every clause we have added has benefited almost exclusively the people in the middle and upper income brackets. Like the Carter commission, I believe that a buck is a buck. I do not think it matters whether a person earns his living as an electrician or as a carpenter receiving an hourly wage, or whether he has an investment portfolio which pays him two, three or five times as much as a person who works with his hands; he has income from which he derives benefit, so surely he should pay tax on his total income. I cannot even accept the idea that what we should do today is encourage savings. We have almost one million people unemployed. This sounds like social credit. No, it is not social credit. What I am saying is that in this day and age we want to encourage people, particularly those in the lower income brackets, to live better and to spend more money. If instead of giving tax exemptions to people in the upper and middle income brackets the Minister of Finance would close off these tax loopholes, he could do what my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre has said, namely, sharply raise the basic pension paid to old age pensioners. He would be able to increase the basic exemption for people paying income tax and he could probably cut the income tax rate for all taxpayers. That is what they should start doing with the provincial income tax rates in Manitoba. If the hon. member for St. Boniface wants to discuss income tax in Manitoba, I would be very happy to debate it with him in his own constituency in Winnipeg. I would be happy to ask the people of his constituency whether they prefer a system where, if you make less than $9,000 a year, you do not pay for hospital care or medical insurance, or a system where a person earning over $9,000 does pay for such things. Tell us about the auto pact. I would be happy to discuss the auto pact with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre any time he wants. I suggest that he should come to my office tomorrow morning and we will call a couple of agents-- Order, please. I think we should direct our attention to clause 70 as amended. I was trying to stick to clause 70, Mr. Chairman, but I was rudely interrupted -- perhaps not rudely, but loudly interrupted by members on both sides. Let me conclude by telling the minister that I hope if he continues as Minister of Finance, before his next budget, which will probably be coming forward in a couple of months, he will take the time to read the Carter commission report and take to heart some of the basic recommendations made in it, so we will have a tax system that will stop being of major benefit to people in the middle and upper income brackets and will become one that is fair to all taxpayers in Canada. Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North; I am sure the minister will do that. I wonder for how many years we will hear statistics quoted from 1971. There have been many amendments to the Income Tax Act since then, and I venture to say that the 1971 statistics quoted by the hon. member could not apply to the last couple of years. I rose to ask the minister whether there any lower age limit was contemplated in respect of the advantage provided as a pension income exemption, or whether in fact a person of the age of 25, for example, leaving employment could take out his pension entitlement to the extent of $1,000 tax free? I am advised that we have allowed in this bill for legitimate early retirement in so far as eligible pension payments are concerned. Maybe I can retire early. As a matter of fact, we might help the hon. gentleman in that respect. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it is the intention of the legislation to allow persons who repeatedly leave employment at an early age to take out each time up to $1,000 of pension entitlement tax free. I should think this might amount to an abuse and I wonder if it has been considered. If it is an abuse, we will look at it in a different light. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member chided me for quoting statistics for 1971. I can only say that the article from which I quoted was written in 1973 and reported on the latest figures available. There must have been a report in 1974 for 1972. I want to tell the hon. member that I intend between now and tomorrow afternoon to call the revenue department and get those figures. I am certain they will not be very different, because there are just as many people availing themselves of these loopholes now in order to avoid paying tax. I will get that information for tomorrow if it is at all possible. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Mr. Chairman, the point is that changes were made in the law which did away with some of those so-called loopholes and I think the hon. member will find some improvements in the statistics since then. I should like to ask a further question about this clause. Is it intended that a person rolling over one registered retirement savings plan to another, who does not use the entire proceeds from the first plan in doing so but gets a refund, will be able to use the pension exemption against such refund? The RRSP is only available to somebody over 65, so that I cannot conceive of that happening. What the hon. gentleman is suggesting is building up a pension of over $2,500 or $4,000, and he is asking if it can be claimed as an exemption under the pension provisions. I do not think so. Clause as amended agreed to. On clause 71. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could explain why in the ways and means motion it is stated that for 1975 and subsequent tax years individual taxpayers will be required in computing taxable income to go to section 109.1, 110.1, 110.2, 110 and 111 respectively in that year, whereas the proposed section, clause 71, has the same sections but 111 is missing? This reference has been misinterpreted in some quarters and by some commentators as being relieving in nature in that it would increase the deductible amount of non-capital loss. This was never the intention. The section was dropped because of confusion and because it was not absolutely required to give meaning to the ways and means motion. Is the minister stating that there is no difference between the wording which appears in the ways and means motion and the section as it appears in clause 71? That is the view of the department and the Department of Justice. Clause agreed to. Clause 72 agreed to. On clause 73. Mr. Chairman, we tabled an amendment, which I should like to move now. The amendment is as follows: That clause 73 of Bill C-49 be amended (a) by striking out line 26 on page 188 and substituting the following: "been paid out of the exempt surplus, as defined by regulation (in this part referred to as exempt surplus) of" and (b) by striking out line 33 on page 188 and substituting the following: "of the taxable surplus, as defined by regulation (in this part referred to as taxable surplus) of the affiliate" These two changes makes specific reference to the fact that there are two terms, "exempt surplus" and "taxable surplus". These are terms defined in the regulations under the Income Tax Act but are not terms defined within the act itself. This is merely a technical amendment. Amendment (Mr. Turner, (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause as amended agreed to. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised a question of privilege concerning the applicability of members of this House attending committee sessions in the other place. As a result of my investigations I find that this is a very subtle and important point. Second, I have been unable to obtain the Senate transcript. I would ask Your Honour's indulgence and the indulgence of this House until I have had time to give this matter further consideration and obtain a transcript. Mr. Speaker, under the terms of our Standing Orders, I rise on a question of privilege. On Saturday February 15th last, at 7 o'clock, I had, at my private residence at Bromptonville, the visit of a representative of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who handed me a document summoning me to appear on March 3 before the Ottawa-Carleton district court, as a result of the ticket I got for having parked my car illegally a few feet away from the parking zone reserved for members of Parliament and Commons staff; because the latter was filled up, I was forced to use a free space in the adjoining parking lot. Considering that on February5th last Your Honour sent a letter to the House leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada indicating that there is a severe parking problem on Parliament Hill; Considering that, according to my information, 354 permits have been issued to people who do not work in the House of Commons, who are not members of Parliament and who do not work either in the Confederation Building; Considering that this situation is very prejudicial not only to the members but also to all staff members who work in the House of Commons; Considering that the situation is urgent in that it has reached the stage where summonses are issued to appear in court; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbinière (Mr. Fortin): That the House of Commons set up a special committee composed of a representative of each party under the chairmanship of Your Honour to study immediately the acute problem of a shortage of parking space, and more specifically the case of the 354 parking permits issued to persons who have nothing to do with the House of Commons or its staff. May I say to the hon. member that I have already begun the process to which he refers in his motion, namely, the re-examination of the entire question he has raised about parking. I have asked for an initial report from the officials in charge. I have also indicated to the whips of the various parties that I hope to put before them a review document which would enable discussion within the caucus. I would hope, thereafter, to call together representatives of each caucus and representatives of the various parties interested in the problem. Hopefully, very soon we will be able to come together in a meaningful way to re-examine and perhaps review the entire procedures involved. That process is already underway. Perhaps the hon. member might accept that as something I have already initiated, and perhaps would be prepared at this moment to have me simply defer his motion on the subject rather than just not accepting it. I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to inform the House and Your Honour that the ticket received by my colleague from Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) was not only inacceptable, but also drawn up in English only. Furthermore, the ticket inconvenienced a member of Parliament on a weekend. It seems to me that in considering the question of privilege the Chair should assure the House that it will instruct those who give tickets to show respect for Parliament Hill and draw up the parking tickets in both official languages of our country. I thank the hon. member for Lotbinière (Mr. Fortin) for having raised this very important matter. Agreed. No. Hear, hear! He looks fully rested and for the timing being in a co-operative mood. As I was saying, my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has an announcement which he would like to make this afternoon. Because of the nature of our business today, the timing is rather awkward and, therefore, I am making my proposal in a rather indefinite form. I would like to have the agreement of the House that there would be a return to motions to enable my colleague, the Minister of Transport, to make his statement at approximately five o'clock. In other words, if there is someone speaking, he would not be interrupted for the purpose of making a statement. Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the House for their welcome. I say to my hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council, who hoped that I was well rested and in a co-operative mood, that I am at least well rested -- and in a co-operative mood, especially today. Barney is writing his speech, and for free, too. I only hope that if an hon. member has the floor at that time, and has nearly finished his speech, the Chair would not see the clock until the speech has been concluded. Mr. Speaker, so often we get these requests on the basis of reasons concerning the stock market, and so on. It is refreshing to get the request today for the simple reason that the minister does not have the statement ready. In the discussions which took place before this agreement was reached, it was also understood that copies of the statement would be in the hands of each opposition spokesman a reasonable time before we revert to motions. I trust that is part of the agreement. Mr. Speaker, we are still agreeable to the general proposal of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), but we wish to express further our hope there will be afterwards a question period that will last until the sitting is suspended at six o'clock. Before proceeding with the oral questions may I ask, in light of those remarks, is it agreed that the House revert to motions at five o'clock under those terms as proposed by the President of the Privy Council? It is so ordered. My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the main estimates tabled yesterday there is an item under the heading, Energy Supplies Allocation Board, for a payment of $1.3 billion in oil import compensation. Would the minister clarify for the House the assumptions upon which this expenditure projection is based and, specifically, the anticipated level of crude oil import prices, the anticipated level of the domestic oil price and the volume of oil imports expected in the year? Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will perhaps have divined that the figure there is a maximum figure which we anticipate would be involved at this particular time. The various predictions he has sought are difficult to make in light of the discussions which will be occurring between first ministers in April of this year. Therefore, we have taken the precaution of indicating a maximum amount. It could well be that as a result of both those discussions and other events the amount may be very much lower. Mr. Speaker, the item is $1.3 billion. Would the minister therefore indicate the maximum assumptions he made with respect to the three components which I identified? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may recognize at once that the assumptions are about equal to those now applying. I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is putting the question in different terms, but it has already been answered by my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. I will be rephrasing what I think is the same question. Does the Minister of Finance anticipate that revenues from the export tax which currently roughly balance the allocations to the subsidy programs for oil east of the Ottawa valley will continue, -- that is this balance of revenues in terms of oil export and payments for imports, will continue for the next fiscal year? As the hon. gentleman admitted it is virtually the same question. Answer it. That will depend very much on the pricing arrangement made by first ministers in April and on the phasing out of exports. Do the revenue forecasts of the Minister of Finance rely on the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on November 22 which indicated the government's intention to reduce the level of export of crude oil to 650,000 barrels per day, or do they not? I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that this would be subject to conversations with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since those most seriously affected by the present rate of inflation are the poor in Canada, whether they are the working poor or not, could the minister inform the House why, after spending between $2 million and $3 million in his department in the last year and a half on more than 600 studies on the question of a guaranteed income program for the poor, he did not see fit to present to the ministers from the provinces in the last few days at the conference a specific proposal in this area for their acceptance, nor did he on the part of the federal government decide to accept some kind of alternative proposal by the provinces. Mr. Speaker, first of all I am pleased to see the hon. member takes a note of the many studies which have been made. I remind him that these studies have not been carried out only by my department but also by the provincial governments and that they are the result of a joint effort by the provinces and the federal government. As to the position of the federal government, I made it clear at the conference. It contains specific proposals made in the context of proposals advocated in the working paper on social security reform, and I am pleased to inform the hon. member, if he has not yet read the news release published at the end of the conference, that during this meeting the provincial and federal governments agreed on a general approach to this question of social security reform. I would ask the minister if it is a fact that he said to the ministers from the provinces that this program had to be put off two or two and a half years because the program was too costly? Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have to answer that the hon. member's informers are wrong. I simply refer him to the statement I made at the beginning of that conference, to the effect that the government proposed for 1976 setting up an income maintenance program for Canadians and the progressive implementation, over several years, of an income supplementation program. Once again I emphasize that all that is in conformity with the working paper put forward by the federal government in 1973 and unanimously supported by the provinces. How much did you pay for that speech? It is my understanding that a majority of the provinces do not take it as a conclusion that the program is going to begin now. Would the minister explain to the House the nature of the program beginning in 1976 and what development can be expected to follow from that program which will begin in 1976 and subsequent years? Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member could not attend the federal-provincial conferences. He would have seen that, contrary to the information he has just given this House, the majority of provinces did not share the opinion he indicated. On the contrary, the decision we reached at the conference was adopted by the provinces unanimously and it appears in the press communiqué released at the end of the conference. Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. With respect to the guaranteed annual income proposed to the provinces and which seems to be creating a bit of a turmoil across the country, does the minister consider paying a guaranteed annual income to all Canadians and perhaps collecting the surplus as income tax under present fiscal regulations, so that those having a large income might pay the surplus back to the government and that poor families might keep the whole guaranteed annual income, which would increase their insufficient present income? Mr. Speaker, this is one of the possibilities that was considered by the government, that is tax credits. However, in the proposal we presented at the federal-provincial conference, we chose the option of transfer payments. However, the proposal put forward after consideration and experience does not exclude the possibility of altering the proposed program in a tax credit program. But such is not the proposal endorsed by the government at the conference. Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Would the government consider, for example, the direct transfer of credit by the Bank of Canada which would then distribute the necessary sums to the provinces for the establishment of a guaranteed annual income? No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question about the alleged cost of the program. It has been alleged that the proposed plan submitted by the minister would cost between $250 million and $2 billion a year, or cost each individual Canadian taxpayer about $300 a year. Would the minister clear this confusion, so that the Canadian people will know how much the minister's proposed plan may cost. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that it depends on the levels of payments granted to the needy and on the reduction rates. I firmly believe that if my hon. colleague's party were in office all Canadians would have a guaranteed income which would not cost a single cent for the very reason that the benefits would be so low that they would be useless. A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the minister said this program would cost between $250 million and $2 billion per year. I ask the minister bluntly, is that what he said during the conference of afterwards? Yes, Mr. Speaker, once again I point out that the variation in costs depends on the level of benefits that would be agreed to between the provinces and the federal government and on the tax-back rate on those benefits. The net result is that type of variation. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Those allowances still do not exceed the national maximum of $75. I realize that this is a provincial matter, but was it discussed, and, if so, can anything be done to alleviate the problems these people face? Mr. Speaker, this problem has not been raised during the conference, but as the hon. member has very properly indicated, this question is one which is a matter of option for the provinces concerned. Provinces may instead opt for the Canada Assistance Plan, which allows provinces to pay much more substantial benefits of course. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. At the last welfare ministers conference the topic of housing for people who must resort to welfare was discussed and treated as an emergency, can the minister indicate if any plans have been put in place, in consultation with the provinces, in order to alleviate this problem. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am pleased to work on this area of concern with the provinces and I hope to be able to announce something very shortly. Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerns a more immediate issue. What if any contingency plans has the government to distribute old age pension cheques, given that mail distribution at regional centres such as Toronto is at a standstill. Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be asked of my colleage, the Postmaster General, who is in charge of the Post Office. Mr. Speaker, we ran into this problem once before in my riding, Verdun, I think four years ago. The member, who at that time was not Postmaster General, simply delivered the old age pension cheques. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not so much concerned that the minister could deliver the cheques to the people of Verdun; I am concerned about seeing them delivered right across the country. Given the fact that regional centres such as Vancouver, Halifax and Toronto may well be out of operation, would the minister undertake to set up special distribution centres for old age pension cheques, of the kind set for the distribution of unemployment insurance payments, and to make those locations well known by utilizing all avenues of the media. Mr. Speaker, this type of emergency operation has already been planned. As I mentioned, what I did in Verdun every member of parliament can do in his own riding, so that there is no particular problem. We could distribute cheques to unemployment insurance offices, and those cheques that are not picked up, because senior citizens may be too old, can be delivered either with the help of the Legion or other people who are willing to do so. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the best things the House can do right now is expedite the passage of the income tax legislation. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the government intends to do nothing in this regard. Oh, oh! You just couldn't care less, Alastair. Order, please. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the incident in Montreal on December 4, when an Air Canada representative made representations to the Canada Labour Relations Board to the effect that the board should rule that citizens appearing before the board should not contact their Member of Parliament concerning matters before the board. Has the minister received any communication from Air Canada about this strange behaviour on the part of one of their representatives. Since this matter does reflect the unsatisfactory state of labour-management relations at the Montreal-Dorval Air Canada setup, will the minister, in consultation with the Minister of Labour give consideration to referring this question of labour-management relations to either the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications or the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. Mr. Speaker, the information I got from Air Canada is that this corporation has never instructed its legal adviser to hold that stance before the Canada Labour Relations Board. Therefore, that stance has been a purely personal one, and Air Canada dissociates itself completely from what has been said. Mr. Speaker, Air Canada may well try to sneak out of the position it took publicly at that labour relations board hearing by denying responsibility for the statement of its representative. In any event, among the things Air Canada did at that hearing which reflects its attitude toward labour-management relations was, in violation of its own regulations which require payment of salary to employees appearing as court witnesses, the refusal to pay employees who appeared that day as subpoenaed witnesses on behalf of Mr. Morrison. I wish to raise this matter at ten o'clock and discuss it at that time. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Was the legal counsel involved a regular employee of Air Canada or was he picked from the Quebec Liberal patronage list? Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have transferred any of my responsibilities to any one of the ministers. I could not do it legally. Some responsibilities rest with ministers, others with the CTC, and again others with the cabinet. However, I assume mine, and Air Canada theirs. Therefore, I have noticed that lawyers are chosen as often among Progressive Conservatives, Social Crediters and New Democrats as among Liberals. Mr. Speaker, the minister chose to answer the question put by the previous questioner. That leaves him one question behind. He can probably answer mine after the next question. I remind the minister he is quoted as saying "it is Otto Lang's baby". Oh, Oh! That is one I hope he does not abort. Will the minister be placing before the provinces at the federal-provincial conference, which I understand will be on February 24, a proposal on this matter? If so, is he in a position to tell the House the nature of the proposal. Mr. Speaker, the agendas for those conferences are prepared by the ministers involved, including the Minister of Transport for Canada. As far as Otto Lang's babies are concerned, I really do not know their number, but I can assure hon. members that I am not the father of any of them. Mr. Speaker, this matter has been fought for and about by the people of the great prairie provinces for almost four and a half years. Cabinet has had this baby for almost a year and still has not made a decision. When will a decision be made by the cabinet? Is the minister in charge of the wheat board correct that there will not be a decision before the end of this year? Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will eventually be in this House. It would be preferable to address the question to him. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering that a Polish family, the Kammiski family, with three young children, has been living in Canada since October 1974, and that a deportation notice has been given to them and that the family is now in a very difficult position, could the minister reveal to the House if representations have been made to him asking him to grant them the status of political refugees and, if so, can the minister tell the House if it has been, or will, be granted? Mr. Speaker, that appeal is now before the Immigration Appeal Board. It was handled by an interdepartmental committee which found there was not refugee status. I will be glad to keep the hon. member informed with regard to the status. Mr. Speaker, there are several very serious questions. I know the hon. member supports the olympics and the financing of the olympics. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because the Minister of Labour stated in the House last Monday that he is not free to discuss, here, policies with respect to labour -- I wonder where he expects to discuss problems relating to his department if not in this House -- I should like to put my question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the fact that approximately $150 million in production of coins has been lost since the strike at the Mint began on January 9 and because there exists a serious coin shortage in Canada notwithstanding the Olympic program shortages, could the minister inform the House of the latest offers made to striking workers at the Mint and what specific steps are being taken by the government to bring this costly strike to an end? Mr. Speaker, it was agreed with the union that no public comment would be made during the negotiating period. Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. I have already given notice of the question. Would the acting minister advise the House whether it is now departmental policy to exclude members of provincial legislatures from management area committees relating to the OFY program on the grounds of conflict of interest? Can the hon. gentleman also say briefly why he considers this to be improper, since nothing was mentioned about this in the letter of instructions soliciting nominations from members of parliament. I am particularly interested since I nominated a member of the Nova Scotia Legislature, a Liberal member, who was rejected despite his willingness to serve. Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, each member was contacted to suggest names for this advisory group and guidelines were set out. I think there is a question in this particular case of whether the gentleman nominated is impartial. Mr. Speaker, I am interested to know he might not be considered impartial. Certainly, I would never make that suggestion. I would. Obviously, the hon. member knows more about this gentleman than I do. In reassessing the criteria for this type of committee or advisory board, I should like to know whether the department would look into the question of elected municipal officials being nominated so that members might have a greater idea of whom this government deems acceptable for service on these boards. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any information on this particular case but I will be happy to follow it up. A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West. Mr. Speaker, we have commenced an investigation into the matter raised by the hon. member. We have communicated with the American authorities and are holding discussions with Canadian labour personnel. As soon as we have something definite to report I will communicate it to the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Fisheries relating to tuna sport fishing. In light of the urgency of operators knowing what the position is going to be, is the minister able to announce the fishery regulations as they apply to tuna sport fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence? Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. We are trying to have as wide consultations as possible and to reconcile the conflict of interest between the sports fishery and the commercial fishery. We are now trying to come to a consensus, and I hope within the next 10 or 15 days to be able to come down with firm regulations. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but since he is not here, I will direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. During the past few days, employees of the manpower centres especially have been refusing to answer in either official language when several people applied to obtain information about those centres. I understand there are 300 positions which are designated as bilingual. If so, can we expect people who can provide the services which the population expects to be appointed at superior positions, or at positions where they have to answer inquiries by the public, as soon as possible? Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we are now inquiring into that subject. It is a fairly complex problem, because there may be bilingual as well as unilingual positions in the same office. It is a matter of identifying the incumbents of both lines of positions. But I said yesterday, and I say it again, we shall take disciplinary action against those who are in bilingual positions and refuse to provide service in either official language. Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary? Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us how many bilingual positions are now vacant in those services, and whether that situation prevents the Canadian population from getting proper service in either of the official languages, which it has a right to expect? Mr. Speaker, I cannot obviously answer now with respect to the number of bilingual positions. I shall inquire into that matter and report to the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs although I think it also concerns the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has been reported from Ankara that Canadian arms dealers are seeking orders in Turkey for the sale of ammunition and other war materials to Turkey to replace the arms embargoed by the United States of America. Will the minister tell the House whether it is government policy to refuse to licence the export of arms to Turkey at the present time? Mr. Speaker, as I recollect, for some considerable period of time during the situation in Cyprus it was not the policy of the government to approve any such licences. Since the situation has changed, I believe the policy has also been modified. I should like to refresh my memory, however, before giving the hon. gentleman a definitive answer. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is looking into this matter would he also see whether American arms are being shipped into Canada for export to Turkey in defiance of the U.S. embargo? Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Finance? Having watched the Canadian dollar drop below par with the United States dollar during the last couple of weeks, is it the direct intention of the Department of Finance to lower the dollar so that we can better plan our commodity trade? Mr. Speaker, we are relying on market forces. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can one assume that our dollar dropping below the U.S. dollar means that Canadians and the world have less confidence in Canada's economy, even though we are able to balance our energy needs? Mr. Speaker, that is not the conclusion I take. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that the reason our dollar is dropping below the United States dollar is because of our current account deficit. It is because the Canadian economy is strong enough to attract more imports than the stagnant economies of our major customers are able to attract our exports. Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance and concerns another example of the poor economics practiced by governments of the past and the present. What does the minister and his department intend to do to relieve the penurious conditions of bondholders resulting from the lack of a fair economic revenue from these bonds? Mr. Speaker, virtually every member of parliament has written to me about these bonds, and I have received a good deal of correspondence from across the country. We had a meeting about this 16 or 17 months ago, including the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the hon. member for Don Valley and other hon. members on our side of the House. There are two difficulties. Firstly, a good percentage of these bonds are in bearer form. The second difficulty is how to find an equitable solution as between those who have already redeemed their bonds at 3 per cent interest and those who might redeem their bonds at a marketable rate of interest. I have not yet been able to find a solution to those two problems. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why could not these bonds be recalled? The last bond issue which paid 9 3/4 per cent was a successful issue and well subscribed. There are two answers to that, Mr. Speaker. The difference between the perpetual bonds and the Canada savings bonds is that the latter are immediately redeemable. The second answer is that Cuba is not receiving that interest rate. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fisheries). What action has the minister taken to relieve the plight of the smelt fishermen in New Brunswick? Mr. Speaker, I would underline that the problem is due to difficulties in marketing. I might say that I was hoping to get a question on this, because yesterday I was informed that there were some 250 pounds of smelt delivered for the attention of members of parliament. In the interest of conservation I asked that they be frozen immediately, and they were. I would be quite willing to receive suggestions regarding their distribution. I have suggested to the parliamentary restaurant that perhaps we could give all members of parliament a chance to taste New Brunswick smelt and to see how good they are. Mr. Speaker, may I address another question to the minister? In addition to contacting the parliamentary restaurant and the cafeteria so that all members of parliament can realize how delightful is this delicacy and so the commodity can be sold at a fair and reasonable price, would the minister consider contacting CIDA to see whether they have sufficient money on hand to assist the smelt fishermen in New Brunswick, who are only being paid eight to ten cents a pound for their fish? Mr. Speaker, we have looked at this possibility and many others, but at the moment that aveneue does not seem to offer very good prospects. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With gold selling this morning at $183 per ounce, a figure more than four times the official price placed on the 22 million ounces of gold stashed away under the Bank of Canada on Wellington Street, would the minister indicate whether consideration is being given to selling part or all of this holding, bearing in mind that at today's price a profit of $3 billion could be reaped, or some $300 for every taxpayer in the country? Mr. Speaker, we hold to the policy of demonetarizing gold. It really depends on agreement by the International Monetary Fund as to what the future of gold will be. A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, that has not been brought to my attention, but I want to suggest to the hon. member that if every country were to accept the hon. member's suggestion, the plight of the third world in face of a revaluation of gold would be disastrous. Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of State for Fisheries. Could he make a statement to the House today concerning the subsidies to the dogfish industry which would continue its activities on the Pacific coast during the dead season, as I raised that question two weeks ago? Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a statement today. I will try to give an answer to the hon. member as soon as possible. Orders of the day. Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions regarding the length of speeches in the following debate. It has been proposed that the first speaker for our side and, of course, the first speaker for the government should have 30 minutes; there will be 20 minutes each for the first speakers for the NDP and Creditistes; and thereafter the balance of the speeches will be 15 minutes each. That proposal seems to have some acceptance. Mr. Speaker, I think you will find this has been agreed to by all parties and by the independent member as well. When I suggested to the hon. member for Peace River that he get up, I was trying to remind him that today is Thursday and that he might like to ask about the business of the House. Mr. Speaker, we took part in this debate and we maintain our support. We are satisfied with this agreement which will allow more members to speak and we hope that the Chair will fairly recognize each member in his turn. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the reminder by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I return to my duties by asking my co-operative friend, the government House leader, what business he has for tomorrow and next week. Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to continue to give first priority to the income tax bill which is now in committee of the whole. It is the intention to call the committee to consider the bill again tomorrow and on Monday, or whenever is necessary. I hope it will be dealt with by Friday but I cannot, of course, commit the House. When that bill has proceeded through committee of the whole, it would then be the government's intention to call the bill to amend the National Housing Act. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader a question in respect of House business. We all realize that in a day or so the minister will be presenting a motion to refer to committees the estimates of various departments. In the case of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, they of course will include the Hong Kong question but not the Hermann report. I wonder whether we can soon expect a motion referring the Hermann report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It would be the intention of the government to move such reference within the next couple of weeks or so. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader if he has any intention of bringing Bill C-16 before the House. I would ask him to treat this matter as an emergency, in view of the fact that in that omnibus bill, C-16, there is one section which includes a discriminating distinction between male and female cadets in the cadet services of Canada. In view of the fact that this summer the student summer employment program will include the cadet services, will the minister bring the bill forward so this matter can be rectified to the benefit of many young people in this country? Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his suggestion. It is my hope that when we have disposed of the amendments to the Income Tax Act, the House leaders will meet and, hopefully, agree upon a definite allocation of time for all the remaining business on the order paper, so that we can reach this bill and many others in respect of which I have received various representations. Also, will he tell the House when we may expect the annual CNR financing bill? Mr. Speaker, I will have to take those questions as notice. I want to speak on the same point of order concerning the proceedings of the House, Mr. Speaker. I asked many times that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the President of the Privy Council inquire when the bill on unemployment insurance amending the 1971 act will be presented to Parliament, as announced in the Speech from the Throne. The hon. gentlemen always answered that they would get the information and report to the House. I would like to ask once more if the President of the Privy Council has inquired about this matter and what was the information he got? Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this question in relation to several other bills not yet on the order paper in respect of which it would be very desirable to have quick approval. I regret having to say, however, that because of the very long time being taken on the amendments to the Income Tax Act, the whole schedule has fallen behind and we will have to decide which of these important bills should receive first priority. Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe) moved: Mr. Speaker, in undertaking this debate and presenting this motion to the House, we are well aware of the very acute problems which our fellow citizens must face every day. Let me mention, for instance, inflation which is left uncontrolled, unemployment whose spectre, in the last few months, has been replaced by the sad reality of layoffs multiplication. We have debated these matters each day since the House resumed its sittings, and we shall go on doing so. However, we dare take up a whole day for a close scrutiny of the orientation and administration of this government in the matter of Canada's foreign aid. We believe that such an scrutiny is even more timely, perhaps even urgent, since the whole cabinet, when describing the economic situation, refer constantly, with OECD figures in support of their statements, to the fact that, according to them, the situation is even worser in foreign countries. "In Canada, things are not so bad for the moment", said our Prime Minister during his speech on starvation throughout the world at the recent liberal $100 a plate fund-raising dinner held in Montreal on January 31st. They cost $160 a plate in your party! Mr. Speaker, those were the comments of my colleagues opposite. They were discussing starvation throughout the world, while next Sunday we shall be discussing the termination of this government. Mr. Speaker, I would like my friends opposite to listen to the Right Hon. Prime Minister's New Year message. He then committed himself and the generosity of Canadians towards helping the more disdvantaged among our fellow human beings. In giving that message, the Prime Minister must have hoped, and rightly so, that we in this country would prove equal to the task. Of that, Mr. Speaker, we are not quite so sure, or rather we so want to be sure of that today, partly as a result of recent reports published in the newspapers in this regard, we want to question the government about its main sharing channel, namely the Canadian International Development Agency. In fact, just about everyone wonders about CIDA, because, as the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Bégin) said in Montreal on Tuesday last, and I quote: ... because we know very little about what CIDA does, and because we know even less about the problems it has to overcome. Mr. Speaker, we feel the time is ripe for a debate in this House, rather than in the Standing Committee on External Affairs when the president of CIDA appears for his annual accounting, since our solidarity with the Third World, and the way in which we prove it, entail political objectives for which government and Parliament as a whole, rather than CIDA'S president alone, or a single vague interministerial committee, are responsible. The time and place are all the more well chosen for our motion that the estimates for the financial year ending on March 31, 1976 were tabled yesterday, and that the only credit for CIDA provides for expenditures of about $734,311,000 -- some $145 million more that the estimates for 1974-75. In putting forward, on behalf of my leader and my party, the motion to be discussed today I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House to understand fully the intent and purport of our concern. At a time when the international viability of world resource management and distribution continues to be questioned, at a time when starvation and the political and social disorder that starvation brings, remains basic to the international horizon, nations where starvation is never present have a simple and direct duty to help others. At a time when the emergence of the third world is no longer idle prognostication but a political and bureaucratic reality, the developed world has a duty to its own security and to the international community to provide the developing nations with meaningful and well thought-out aid and development assistance. That is the framework within which we seek greater scrutiny for CIDA and its operations. Those opposite are once again indulging in the old "Catch 22" approach to government policy that so frequently typifies the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to public policy and debate. Simply stated, the approach can be put thus: The logic of that approach may escape you, Mr. Speaker, as much as it escapes those of us seeking to scrutinize this particular agency's operations. But then again, perhaps we err even in wanting to ask questions. Perhaps we err in wanting to know why foreign aid has become the personal fiefdom of one man, why that fiefdom appears to be in revolt -- the best example is the Price Waterhouse report on personnel turnover, a report which still remains a very secret document -- and why this government has placed this little empire above scrutiny. Perhaps we err in seeking to have the activities of this agency brought before a special parliamentary committee for some frank discussion, some thorough probing, without the restrictions which are normally imposed by the rules of the House on the study of estimates. Perhaps we err in thinking that the government might treat the committee with any more respect than they treat this House. Perhaps we err when we wonder why no government official, no minister, has jumped to the stringent defence of the agency in the face of fairly serious allegations made by an Ottawa newspaper concerning its management and internal policies. Is a defence now being put together? Does the government have a defence? Will we hear it today? Will the minister speak, or will he delegate someone else? Does this government care enough about its foreign aid establishment to defend the key foreign aid agency? If this House is more concerned today about foreign aid spending, if we seek more answers and more information it is because we know, as politicians, how difficult it is to justify foreign aid spending to the men and women who pay the taxes and find it more and more difficult to make ends meet.