Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

1 (a) Yes, Canada opposed General Principle Two because it called for the adoption of trading methods to eliminate discrimination based on socio-economic systems. This principle was put forward by the Soviet bloc which sought to eliminate all reference to trade restrictions based on strategic grounds, (b) Yes, Canada opposed General Principle Three regarding the sovereign right of each country freely to trade with other countries and freely to dispose of its natural resources because this right was not qualified by any reference to international law, to agreements freely entered into, or to relevant UNGA resolutions. (c) Yes. While Canada had no difficulty with that section of General Principle Seven which dealt with access to markets, we opposed the concept of stabilization

of commodity prices at artificial levels and the relating of those price levels to those of manufactured goods, (d) Yes. General Principle Eight sought to deal with the application of the most favoured nation principle to the question of tariff preferences for developing countries. At that time Canada was unable to accept this principle. Canada is, of course, among those developed countries which subsequently accepted the Generalized Preference Scheme established at UNCTAD II.

2 (a), (b), (c) and (d). Yes. While often sympathetic to the general tenets of these Principles, Canada could not, at that time, accept the phraseology which was in many cases unbalanced and arbitrary. For example, Principles Fifteen and Four concerned respectively the special needs of the least developed of the developing countries, and the requirement for all nations to pledge themselves to pursue policies designed to accelerate economic growth. The Canadian abstention in both cases reflected difficulty with the uncompromising text rather than disagreement on substance. Delegations of other major trading nations, including Canada, were likewise unable to envisage that national policies could feasibly be directed towards a completely new international division of labour (General Principle Five). Canada, together with other major aid donors, could not accept that there should be no element of discretion in the choice of aid recipients (Principle Eleven), that UNCTAD should prejudge the conclusion of an agreement on general and complete disarmament (Principle Twelve) or the implication that the colonial period had brought no economic benefit to developing countries (Principle Fourteen).

1. Does the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club occupy a waterlot in Coal Harbour, Burrard Inlet?

2. How many square feet does this waterlot comprise?

3. (a) What is the rental rate per square foot per year for the waterlot occupied by the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club (b) what is the total rental paid by the RVYC per year?

4. What is the rental rate paid by commercial users for waterlot areas in the vicinity of Coal Harbour, Burrard Inlet, per square foot per year?

5. When does the lease for the waterlot occupied by the RVYC expire?

Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):

The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Yes.

2. 1,291,031.2 square feet.

3. (a) .0038cent per square foot; (b) nominal rental only established in 1953, $50 per year.

4. The only commercial leases which the National Harbours Board have in Coal Harbour are for tillable water-lots at an annual rental rate of six cents per square foot. Policy is that permits to fill waterlot areas are only issued provided tenant agrees to pay 8 per cent of market value as land on completion of fill as annual rental.

June 30, 1972

5. March 23, 1974.

1. What is the percentage of feed grain tonnage transported eastward (a) on the St. Lawrence Seaway (b) by rail?

2. Is there a price difference between both means of transportation and, if so, what is the difference per bushel?

Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):

1. For domestic feed grain utilization in Eastern Canada: (a) Crop year 1969-70, 89.4 per cent; Crop year 1970-71, 82.7 per cent, (b) Crop year 1969-70,10.6 per cent; Crop year 1970-71,17.3 per cent.

2. The difference in the cost of moving feed grains from the Lakehead via water and rail are not constant at all destinations in Eastern Canada, or at any point in time. Water freight rates fluctuate depending upon the supply and demand for vessels. Storage and interest costs accrue on grains stored in Eastern elevators during the winter months, a cost not applicable to the rail movement. A typical comparison of costs on movement of barley during the open navigation season from the Lakehead to a feed mill at Granby, Quebec, would be:

(a) Shipment by water Lakehead to Montreal and truck to Granby, Quebec: (i) Lakehead terminal costs, 4.900 cents bushel; (ii) Water freight, insurance, tolls, and brokerage, 9.740 cents bushel; (iii) Montreal Terminal Costs, 5.300 cents bushel; (iv) Trucking, 6.240 cents bushel; Gross Total 26.18 cents bushel; Less Freight Assistance 15.36 cents bushel; Net Cost 10.82 cents bushel.

(b) Shipment by rail Lakehead to Granby, Quebec (i) Lakehead Terminal Costs, 5.196 cents bushel; (ii) Rail freight and Brokerage, 22.37 cents bushel; Gross Total, 27.57 cents bushel; Less Freight Assistance, 15.36 cents bushel; Net Cost, 12.21 cents bushel.

(c) Shipment by rail Western Country elevator to Granby, Quebec: (i) Lakehead Terminal Diversion, 2.75 cents bushel; (ii) Rail Freight and Brokerage, 22.37 cents bushel; Gross Total, 25.12 cents bushel; Less Freight Assistance, 15.36 cents bushel; Net Cost, 9.76 cents bushel.

1. What was the operation deficit of the St. Lawrence Seaway during the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71?

2. Does the United States of America share the deficit incurred on services offered to international navigation on the Seaway with Canada and, if so, in what proportion?

Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):

The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. There was no operating deficit in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. The Montreal-Lake Ontario section earned an operating profit (i.e. before providing for interest and for replacement of machinery and equipment) which was greater than the deficit on the Welland Canal. The following are the Canadian operating results for these years:

Questions

1969

(000's $)

Operating Profits (Losses) Montreal-Lake Ontario Section $13,576.5 10,133.0 12,476.3

Welland

Canal

2. There are five Canadian locks and two United States locks in the Montreal-Lake Ontario section. By agreement the tolls revenue of this section is now divided between Canada and the United States in the ratio of 73:27. There is no sharing of costs. The following are the United States operating results for these years:

(000's $)

Operating Profits (Losses)

Montreal-Lake Ontario Section

1968 $ 4,726.0

1969 3,668.1

1970 4,541.4

All revenues collected on the Welland Canal accrue to Canada which bears the entire cost of the operation.

1. On what dates were the railways operating from the prairie region to Vancouver rendered inoperative due to the snow slides or mud slides?

2. What was the total hours of delay in each case?

Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):

The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Although there were numerous and serious interruptions to through service at certain times during the winter, at no one time was the railway completely inoperative all the way from the Prairies to Vancouver. As indicated below there were many instances of mud and snow slides which delayed trains and service for certain lengths of time, nevertheless, traffic was kept moving forward on the various subdivisions of this territory and held at various locations along the line pending the clearing of the slides:

January 20-24 Yale Sub.

Boston Bar to Hope, 0900 until 1400, Jan. 24th, acct. snowslides

During this period the CPR were also impassable until the PM of Jan. 22 at which time CN commenced detouring over that Company's tracks.

February 6 Yale Sub.

Mileage 33.4, 0615 until 1200, acct. snow and mud slides

February 7 Ashcroft Sub.

Mileage 93.8, 1410 until 2030, snowslide February 15 Yale Sub.

June 30, 1972

Questions

Mileage 7.7, 0400 until 1005, rock slide February 16 Yale Sub.

Mileage 16.3, 1130 until 2350, 17, slip out February 27 Yale Sub.

Mileage 22.9, 1125 until 1200, 28, rock and snowslides March 5 Yale Sub.

Mileages 19 and 21.7, 0320 until 1620, snowslides March 10 Clearwater Sub.

Mileages 19.3 and 19.8, 1205 until 2130, snowslides March 11 Clearwater Sub.

Mileage 19.8, 2220 until 0505, 12, snow and trees March 11 Ashcroft Sub.

Mileage 76.5, 2100 until 1145, 12, rock slide March 12 Ashcroft Sub.

Mileage 31.5, 2300 until 1530, 13, washout March 13 Albreda Sub.

Mileage 53,1700 until 0545, 14, snowslides March 16 Yale Sub.

Mileages 5.7, 14, 16.2, 20.6, 33.4, 0130 until 2350,

snowslides

March 19 Clearwater Sub.

Mileages 51.5 and 52.3, 0900 until 2120, 21st, Slip out March 19 Ashcroft Sub.

Mileage 113.3, 2130 until 0545, 20, mud and rock March 27 Yale Sub.

Mileage 22.9, 1315 until 1000, 28, snow March 28 Ashcroft Sub.

Mileage 109.5, 2355 until 1500, 29, snow

2. The Company does not maintain records that would readily disclose the total hours of delay in each specific case as such information has n.o managerial significance. To develop the data to answer the question would require considerable expenditure of time and money.

1. By what means is the government presently preventing pollution of the Great Lakes?

2. Is the government aware that owners of boats are throwing waste into such waters?

3. Is the government aware that many hundreds of cans of paint are thrown into such waters?

Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):

I am informed by the Departments of the Environment and Transport as follows: 1. The Federal Government is preventing pollution through the application of anti-pollution legislation, such as the Fisheries Act, the Canada Water Act and the Canada Shipping Act, and through such agreements as the Canada/United States Agreement and the Canada/Ontario Agreement. The Department of Transport enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations and the Garbage Pollution Prevention Regulations throughout the Great Lakes. These

Regulations apply to ships and both carry a possible fine of $100,000 against offenders. Marine surveyors employed by the Department of Transport investigate reports of infractions of these regulations and lay charges whenever necessary. Coast Guard vessels employed by the Department of Transport carry out regular surveillance in Great Lakes waters. A Coast Guard aircraft with departmental surveyors acting as observers also carries out regular anti-pollution patrols throughout the area.

2. The Garbage Pollution Prevention Regulations were promulgated specifically to deal with the problem of waste from vessels in the Great Lakes and in other Inland Waters.

3. No.

What was the cost of the booklet, including its distribution to taxpayers, dealing with the revised system of income tax effective respecting 1972 income?

Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):

In so

far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: It prepared and distributed 11 tax reform pamphlets to date on various aspects of the new tax law, two mailed to all 9,800,000 taxpayers and others on a selective basis according to subject. The cost was $770,903.75 for printing, $70,000 for inserting and $720,000 for mailing. Included in the cost are supplies available over the desks of the 28 District Taxation Offices.