1969-11-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Laflamme.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That the extract of the minutes of the Commissioners of Internal Economy, laid upon the table by Mr. Speaker on November 21, 1969, concerning allowances for members, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Gilbert: 1.	Have there been any recent design changes for Canada's domestic telecommunications satellite?
2.	If so, what are the main changes contemplated and for what reasons?
3.	What is the expected new additional costs of the satellite as a result of these changes?
4.	What is the total expected cost for the construction of the satellite?
5.	If a new design is now required for the domestic satellite, is Telesat considering new contract tenders for the project?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: The Government is unaware of any substantial changes effected or contemplated in the design objectives and criteria laid out by the project office that had the responsibility for Canada's Domestic Telecommunications Satellite until Telesat Canada took over on September 1st, 1969.


AIR CANADA ORDERS FOR AIRPLANES
Mr. Skoberg: What airplanes does Air Canada presently have on order and/or on a reserved basis?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: Aircraft on order as of November 1, 1969: 8 Douglas DC-8's; 3 Douglas DC-9's; 3 Boeing 747's; 10 Lockheed L-lOll's. Aircraft on reserve basis as of November 1, 1969: 9 Lockheed L-lOll's; 4 Concorde SST's; and 6 Boeing SST's.


CANADIAN CONSUMER COUNCIL
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Who are the executive directors of the Canadian Consumer Council and what are their respective annual salaries?
2.	Who are the other staff members of the Canadian Consumer Council and what are their respective annual salaries?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Mr. G. R. Anderson is the present executive director of the Canadian Consumer Council and his salary is $23,000.
2.	There are three other staff members of the Canadian Consumer Council: Miss F. Sinclair, Administrative Assistant, $500 per month; Mr. K. D. Rubin, Research Assistant, $550 per month; Miss G. Ulmer, St-4, $436 per month.


COMMUNIST CHINA-STATEMENT BY RCMP COMMISSIONER
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	Does the Government of Canada agree with the statement of RCMP Commissioner William Hig-gitt that "the presence of a Communist Chinese Embassy in Ottawa will increase espionage activity in Canada"?

November 2G, 1969
Questions
2.	What is the policy of the Government of Canada regarding civil servants who express publicly their opposition to or reservations about government policy?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1.	The statement "the presence of a Communist Chinese Embassy in Ottawa will increase espionage activity in Canada" is not a fair or accurate summary of what Commissioner Higgitt stated.
2.	Having regard to the reply to Part 1, this question is hypothetical.


ATLANTIC REGION FREIGHT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Skoberg: 1 What specific mechanism has been established within the Department of Transport to ensure that the effects of Bill C-207, the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, are realized and in particular, that the up to thirty percent subsidy on freight emanating in the Atlantic Provinces and destined for other parts of Canada is passed on in the Atlantic Provinces to shippers in the form of reduced freight rates?
2.	When is it expected that the joint federal-provincial committee on transport in the Maritimes will complete their report on recommendations for improving existing federal scheme of assistance to Atlantic transportation?
3.	Will this report be made public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. The Government is relying on competition to be the ultimate mechanism which will enable the benefits of this transportation assistance to be realized by shippers. Increased competition in the area is evident from recent rate reductions announced by Atlantic region trucking operators.
2.	It is premature to attempt to set any date for completion of the work of this committee.
3.	The decision as to which reports are to be made public will depend on the nature of the material covered and the extent to which confidential sources must be protected.


AIR CANADA PASSENGER FARES
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What action is contemplated by Air Canada in response to the passnger fare reduction of Alitalia on North Atlantic routes?
2.	Is Air Canada contemplating similar action in reducing passenger fares on North Atlantic routes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The Alitalia fare reduction for winter only is one of a number of new individual fares filed with governments for approval. Air Canada proposes to meet any fares of this sort filed and approved by the various governments concerned.

2.	Air Canada has submitted for approval to government heads its proposals for drastic reductions for bulk and group fares on the North Atlantic.


RHODESIA-NAVY CONTRIBUTION TO ENFORCE SANCTIONS
Mr. Nystrom: Is Canada prepared to contribute naval forces to the United Nations if it undertakes to enforce sanctions against Rhodesia on the high seas?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: A decision by the Security Council of the United Nations would be required to empower a multi-lateral force of member states to enforce sanctions against Rhodesia by naval action. As no such decision has been made the question is hypothetical and the possibility of Canadian naval forces involvement has not arisen.


RHODESIA-VIOLATIONS OF TRADE SANCTIONS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Is the Government of Canada aware of violations of the trade sanctions against Rhodesia by Portugal and South Africa?
2.	If so, has any protest been registered with these governments and in what form?
3.	Is consideration being given to (a) implementing unilaterally, or (b) discussing the implementation of trade sanctions against Portugal and South Africa if violations continue?
4.	Will Canada (a) initiate or (b) support U.N. action against Portugal and South Africa if violations continue?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The Government of
Canada is aware that both Portugal and the Republic of South Africa do not abide by the United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for mandatory economic sanctions against Rhodesia.
2.	The Canadian attitude toward the refusal of both governments to adhere to the Security Council resolutions has been stated at the United Nations. On October 16, 1969, the Canadian representative on the Fourth Committee said in the course of a statement of Canadian policy on southern Africa: "We call on the Governments of Portugal and South Africa to cease their defiance of the mandatory decisions of the Security Council, and to desist from providing the Smith regime with support."
3.	No.
November 26, 1969

4.	While the question of United Nations action against Portugal and the Republic of South Africa for their failure to implement sanctions against Rhodesia has been raised in the United Nations General Assembly, it is for the Security Council to initiate action and take the necessary decisions. In the absence of agreement in the Security Council to do so, it is the Canadian view that United Nations action is not a practical proposition at this time.


ANNUAL SALARY, DAVID GOLDEN
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What is the annual salary of Mr. David Golden, President of Telesat Canada Corporation?
2.	What was Mr. Golden's annual salary when he was Deputy Minister of Defence Production?
3.	What was Mr. Golden's annual salary when he was President of the Crown company, Northern Ontario Pipeline Corporation?
4.	What was Mr. Golden's annual salary when he was Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Eric William Kierans: 1. This is a matter which falls within the powers of the Board of Directors of Telesat Canada.
2.	Mr. Golden's annual salary was $20,000.00 in 1962 when he left the position of Deputy Minister of Defence Production.
3.	Mr. Golden served as President of Northern Ontario Pipeline Corporation without remuneration.
4.	Mr. Golden's annual salary was $25,000.00 in 1964 when he left the position of Deputy Minister of Industry.


PRESIDENT OF TELESAT CANADA
Mr. Nyslrom: 1.	Is Mr. David Golden the new President of Telesat Canada?
2.	Has Mr. Golden divested himself of all financial interests related to the Telesat Corporation?
3.	Does Mr. Golden own any shares or have any financial interests in Bell Canada or RCA Victor Co. Ltd.?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Yes.
2.	He did not have any at the time of his appointment to the position of President of Telesat Canada.
3.	No.
Questions


MOTOR VEHICLE PASSIVE RESTRAINT DEVICES
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to equip new vehicles with "air bags" or similar passive restraint devices for protecting occupants in crashes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The possible use of inflatable occupant restraints devices is receiving close consideration. While an "air-bag" restraint system has been developed by at least one manufacturer, the tests on this device installed in vehicles have revealed a number of practical problems that will have to be overcome before "air-bags" could be made mandatory equipment on motor vehicles.
COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS- EXPENDITURES FOR 1968/1969


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What was the total amount of expenditure by the Company of Young Canadians for 1968/1969?
2.	Of this amount how much was expenditure for consulting and professional fees?
3.	What are the names of the staff members and their respective addresses who receive salaries of (a) $10,000-$15,000 per year (b) over $15,000 per year (c) $20,000 per year?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:
1.	The total amount of expenditure by the Company of Young Canadians for 1968-69 was $1,916,774.
2.	The amount of the total expenditure for consulting and professional fees was $180,130.
3.	The names of staff persons and their respective addresses who receive salaries of
(a)	$10,000-$15,000 per year: Mrs. Fay A. Beale, 34 Euclid Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario; Mr. Victor Cathers, Box 488, High Prarie, Alberla; Mr. Elbert Deveaux, Box 1237, Sydney, Nova Scotia; Mr. Ian Hamilton, R.R. No. 3, Casselman, Ontario; Mr. Richard Light-bown, 1554 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario; Mr. James Littleton, 559 Besserer Street, Ottawa, Ontario; Mr. Pierre Renaud, 980 St-Antoine St., Ste 450, Montreal, Quebec; Mr. Edward Smith, 980 St-Antoine St., Ste 450, Montreal, Quebec; Mr. Orval Strong, 2525 Ontario Street, Vancouver, B.C.; (b) over $15,000 per year: Mr. Claude Vidal, executive director, 672 Wiseman Avenue, Montreal, Quebec; (c) $20,000 per year: Nil.
Questions

November 26, 1969


ESTABLISHMENT OP FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON ATLANTIC REGION TRANSPORTATION
[Stage Direction]
Question 282-Mr. Thomas (Moncton):
1.	When was the Federal-Provincial Committee on Atlantic Region Transportation established?
2.	How many members were appointed by the federal government?
3.	What are the names of the federal appointees?
4.	How many members were appointed by each of the four Atlantic Provinces?
5.	What are the names of the provincial appointees?
6.	Who is the Chairman of the Committee?
7.	What are the terms of reference?
8.	Have any meetings been held?
9.	Have any decisions been made?
10.	How often will the Committee meet?
Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. September 2, 1969.
2.	Two.
3.	Dr. George McClure, Director of Programming, Eastern Region, Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Mr. A. C. Weaver, Director Transportation Planning Analysis, Department of Transport.
4.	One.
5.	Mr. F. J. Kemp, Director of Transportation, Province of Newfoundland. Miss Z. Link-letter, Director of Economics and Development, Department of Trade and Industry, Province of . Nova Scotia. Mr. H. A. Nason, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Highway Engineer, Province of New Brunswick. Mr. K. MacKenzie, Supervisor of Transportation, Department of Highways, Province of Prince Edward Island.
6.	Dr. George McClure.
7.	Terms of reference: Detailed examination of the Maritime Freight Rate Assistance on rail traffic within the Region. Review of all subsidized water transport services into or out of the region or wholly within the Region. Recommendation of possible revisions or improvements in the provision of these services. Consideration of possible subsidy on outbound air and waterborne freight from the Region. Examination in detail of economic effects of the outbound assistance under the Maritime Freight Rate Act to determine if a more selective approach might not provide a more effective use of the funds provided by Parliament.
8.	Yes.
9.	No.
10.	As often as needed.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE COMPANIES AND PERFORMERS
Mr. Dinsdale: Who decides what companies or individual performers will appear at the National Arts Centre and what is the criteria used to make this selection?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: The Programme Committee, chaired by the Director-General and consisting of the Directors of Programming, Music, Theatre, Finance and Operations, decides what performances shall be given at the National Arts Centre. The principal criteria, applied to achieve programme balance in the course of a whole season, are excellence, variety, creativity, due Canadian content and an estimate of costs against box office revenues.


INDIAN WORKERS, SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY
Mr. Thomson: 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration recruit Indian workers for the beet growers in Southern Alberta?
2.	Has the Department checked the housing facilities made available to the beet field workers?
3.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development taken any action on behalf of the Indians in this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. Yes. The Department of Manpower and Immigration recruits Indian workers for beet growers in Southern Alberta who meet the provincial guidelines for wages, working and living conditions established by the Alberta Agricultural Manpower Committee.
2.	No. The housing facilities are checked by a representative of the Alberta Department of Agriculture, following receipt of orders for workers.
3.	No, but where complaints are received from the Indian Beet Workers concerning wages or accommodations, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cooperates with the Alberta Federal Provincial Agricultural Committee and the Department of Manpower and Immigration to arrive at a satisfactory solution.
November 26, 1969


FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT BOARD PAYMENTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How much money was paid to the fishing industry through the Fisheries Prices Support Board in 1968 and 1969 to date?
2.	What was the total amount paid in each province by the Fisheries Prices Support Board and how many received support in each province in 1968 and 1969 to date?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. 1968, $6,641,679.73; 1969 to date, $5,119,634.21.
2.
Amount Paid
Province	$
Ontario	751,923.92
N.B. and P.E.I. 466,351.88 Nova Scotia 1,057,299.48 Newfoundland 3,780,292.71 Quebec	585,811.74

720,955.00
241,309.30
355,103.69
3,024,674.94
777,591.28
In Ontario approximately 500 fishermen received support in each year; on the Atlantic Coast, approximately 29,000.


CANADIAN MISSION TO UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): For the fiscal year 1968-69, how much money was spent with respect to the Canadian Mission to the United Nations for (a) rent of premises for the Mission (b) rent of hotel rooms for personnel attached to the Mission or associated with it in any way (c) expense allowances for personnel attached to the Mission or associated with it in any way (d) travelling expenses for personnel attached to the Mission or associated with it in any way (e) telephone, telegrams and office supplies (f) other expenses not listed in parts (a) to (e)?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) $154,785; (b) $12,000; (c) $373,613; (d) $6,352; (e) $23,117; (f) $524,128-Total: $1,093,995.


COST OF STE. ANNE-DES-PLAINES PRISON
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the construction cost of the prison built by the federal government in Ste. Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec?
2.	How many prisoners can it house?
3.	What will be the approximate cost of furnishings?


George James McIlraith: 1. $14,608,000 (note).
2.	450 inmates.
3.	$78,457.
Note: This figure includes the costs of a water filtration unit, sewage treatment facilities, sewer lines, roads, administrative and 21545-9
Questions
shop buildings, and other facilities designed to serve all institutions planned for the Ste. Anne-des-Plaines complex.


PROPOSALS TO ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have all proposals submitted to the Atlantic Development Board been acted upon and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What has been the total financial involvement of the ADB in the Atlantic Provinces and what is the breakdown by province In financial assistance provided by the Board?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes.
2. Newfoundland, $48,476,861; New Brunswick, $43,331,053; Nova Scotia, $35,907,269; Prince Edward Island, $8,530,219; Projects of a Regional nature (including 2 or more provinces), $197,576-Total: $136,442,978.


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees were on strength in the Department of External Affairs on April 1, 1969?
2.	How many employees are on strength in the Department of External Affairs at this date?
3.	What is the anticipated strength of the Department of External Affairs as of March 31, 1970?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. 2,932, including locally engaged staff abroad but excluding employees of the Passport Office. There were 159 employees in the Passport Office.
2.	3,061, including locally engaged staff abroad but excluding employees of the Passport Office. The increase includes 54 employees transferred from the Comptroller of the Treasury to this Department on August 1, 1969 as a result of a reorganization of departments. There were 200 employees in the Passport Office.
3.	2,922 according to the estimates of the Department, including locally engaged staff abroad but excluding employees of the Passport Office. There are expected to be 272 employees in the Passport Offices, the increase being due to the opening of three regional Passport Offices.


Mr. Mazankowski: Have any concrete plans been considered for the construction of a federal RCMP building in Vegre-ville, Alberta and, if so, when might construction commence?


George James McIlraith: No.

November 26, 1969
Questions


Mr. Bell: For each year in the period 1965-63 in the Atlantic Region and the Province of New Brunswick, what was (a) the total number of bankruptcies (b) the aggregate debts (c) the percent paid on the dollar
(a) Total number of Bankruptcies Filed
(b)	Total liabilities as declared by debtors (Thousand dollars)
(c)	Per cent paid to creditors as reported by trustees
(d)	Average cost of administration per bankruptcy as reported by trustees
(e)	Per cent of debtors who filed assignments in the years 1965-68, and who had been discharged at December 31, 1968
(f)	The average period of time for the administration of an estate closed in each period for the years 1965-68:


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 421
Mr. Foriin:: 1.	Has the government received submissions from the Government of the Province of Quebec on better co-ordination of the activities of the federal and Quebec farm credit agencies and, if so, when were they received and what were their recommendations?
2.	Has the federal government studied these submissions and, if so, what was the reply?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: 1. Representations have been made by the Government of the Province of Quebec on various occasions that the Farm Credit Corporation, rather than making loans to farmers in Quebec, should advance funds to a pro-

to creditors (d) the average cost per bankruptcy (e) the percent of debtors granted discharge (f) the average period of time from assignment or petition to final disposal?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Atlantic	New
	Provinces	Brunswick
1965	63	291966	43	201967	63	211968	63	321965	4,267	1,2171966	1,594	4331967	13,243	1,1511968	5,554	1,2411965	29.8	10.61966	7.9	5.31967	9.6	16.61968	14.0	17.91965	$2,962	$1,0311966	3,080	4,1001967	1,951	3,7691968	1,475	1,3201965	34.9	41.31966	37.2	50.01967	25.3	28.51968	7.9	9.31965	2.16 years	2.4 years1966	2.69 years	2.35 years1967	2.65 years	2.0 years1968	3.08 years	4.5 years
vincial credit agency, which this agency would then lend to farmers.
2. The reply was that the government believes that federal funds provided for lending to individual farmers should be lent directly by the Farm Credit Corporation so that they may be uniformly available to farmers across Canada. In addition, the reply suggested implementation of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in Quebec that a committee be formed between representatives of the Farm Credit Corporation, the Quebec Farm Credit Bureau, and the Quebec Department of Agriculture and Colonization, to promote co-ordination of their respective activities.
November 2G, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	1257
Questions
Halifax, Nova Scotia, October 16, 1969, by a member of the Canadian Forces for being absent without authority from his ship; the arrest was made under the provisions of Section 10 of the Visiting Forces Act and an Order made by the Minister of National Defence, October 1, 1969.
2.	Seaman Autry was not deported. After being arrested by a member of the Canadian Forces, he was turned over to a United States naval authority in Halifax approximately three hours later. It is understood he was returned to the U.S.A. the same day.
3.	No.
4.	No. A notice of appeal from the ruling of the British Columbia Court was filed on November 3, 1969 on behalf of the Crown.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Who are the Ministers, Acting Ministers, and Second Acting Ministers of each department of the federal government?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 2nd Acting
Department	Minister	Acting Minister	Minister1.	Agriculture	Mr.	Olson	Mr. Greene	Mr.	Laing2.	Communications	Mr.	Kierans	Mr. Pelletier	Mr.	Jamieson3.	Consumer and Corporate Affairs Mr.	Basford	Mr. Mcllraith	Mr.	Jamieson4.	Energy, Mines and Resources	Mr.	Greene	Mr. Lang	Mr.	Pepin5.	External Affairs	Mr.	Sharp	Mr. Martin	Mr.	Drury6.	Finance	Mr.	Benson	Mr. Gray	Mr.	Sharp7.	Fisheries and Forestry	Mr.	Davis	Mr. Dube	Mr.	Cote8.	Indian Affairs and Northern	Mr.	Chretien	Mr. Andras	Mr.	DavisDevelopment	9.	Industry, Trade and Commerce	Mr.	Pepin	Mr. Lang	Mr.	Drury10.	Justice and Attorney General	Mr.	Turner	Mr. Mcllraith	Mr.	Macdonald11.	Labour	Mr.	Mackasey	Mr. McEachen	Mr.	Basford12. Manpower and Immigration	Mr.	MacEachen	Mr. Marchand	Mr.	Mackasey13.	National Defence	Mr.	Cadieux	Mr. Drury	Mr.	Laing14.	National Health and Welfare	Mr.	Munro	Mr. Martin	Mr.	Pelletier15.	National Revenue	Mr.	Cote	Mr. Kierans	Mr.	Chretien16.	Privy Council	Mr.	Macdonald	Mr. MacEachen	Mr.	Olson17.	Public Works	Mr.	Laing	Mr. Cote	Mr.	Dube18.	Regional Economic Expansion	Mr.	Marchand	Mr. Munro	Mr.	Mackasey19.	Secretary of State	Mr.	Pelletier	Mr. Stanbury	Mr.	Munro20.	Solicitor General	Mr.	Mcllraith	Mr. Turner	Mr.	Lang21.	Supply and Services	Mr.	Richardson	Mr. Olson	Mr.	Cote22.	Transport	Mr.	Jamieson	Mr. Richardson	Mr.	Turner23.	Treasury Board	Mr.	Drury	Mr. Kierans	Mr.	Laing24.	Veterans Affairs	Mr.	Dube	Mr. Andras	Mr.	Basford


Mr. Fortin: Has the government given proprietary Crown corporations any instructions regarding wage policy during the last year and, if so, what were they?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: No.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did representatives of the Armed Forces arrest James Autry in Halifax and, if so (a) for what reasons and under the provisions of what legislation (b) who gave the orders for Mr. Autry's arrest?
2.	Was Mr. Autry deported to the United States and, if so, how much time elapsed between his arrest and deportation?
3.	Was Mr. Autry advised during his detention by Canadian authorities that he had the right to be represented by legal counsel or that it might be helpful to retain such counsel?
4.	In the light of a ruling by a British Columbia Court, is the department considering making representations to the United States authorities asking that Mr. Autry be returned to Canada?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minisler of National Defence):: 1. Seaman Autry was arrested in
1258

November 26. 1969
Motions for Papers


Mr. Thomas S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask leave to have question No. 359, in my name, withdrawn from the Order Paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council whether he could inquire about question No. 306 which I put on the order paper. The government announced such a project two weeks ago and I wonder why I have not yet received a reply.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 36, 47 and 85 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the notices of motions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of Canada's presentation to the International Monetary Fund meeting in September.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the consultant study by Mr. Roy Matthews on Foreign Aid prepared for the Canadian International Development Agency as part of Canada's foreign aid review.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the consultant study by Mr. F. Fontaine on Foreign Aid prepared for the Canadian International Development Agency as part of Canada's foreign aid review.
Motion agreed to.
IMr. Walker.]
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the consultant study by Professor L. Sabourin on Foreign Aid prepared for the Canadian International Development Agency as part of Canada's foreign aid review.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the consultant study by Professor D. Usher on Foreign Aid prepared for the Canadian International Development Agency as part of Canada's foreign aid review.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the consultant study by Professor B. Higgins on Foreign Aid prepared for the Canadian International Development Agency as part of Canada's foreign aid review.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all background papers prepared for the Foreign Aid Review Conference held on May 16, 17 and 18 at the Skyline Hotel in Ottawa.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the consultant study by Professor G. L. Reuber on Foreign Aid prepared for the Canadian International Development Agency as part of Canada's foreign aid review.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
S.	TRIANTIS
Motion No. 23-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the consultant study by Professor S. Triantis on Foreign Aid prepared for the Canadian International Development Agency as part of Canada's foreign aid review.
Motion agreed to.
November 26, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of all items presently requiring permits for exports and import purposes under the Export and Import Permits Act.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Malher:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and Canadian automobile manufacturers regarding safety recalls of cars and trucks, sold in Canada, announced in 1969.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report presented to the Prime Minister from the Science Council of Canada regarding the future financing of research in Canada.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 28, 75, 124 and 140 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that the notices of motions he has enumerated shall be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Gilbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec regarding the administration of housing projects in Quebec.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 75-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by Mr. Peter Comay prepared for the Department of Manpower and Immigration
Motions jor Papers
regarding manpower flows from Canada to the United States.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 124-Mr. Pelers:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the Department of Communications "Telecommission" regarding the relationship between common carriers and computer companies.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 140-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy cellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta regarding the selection of designated regions under the new Regional Development Incentives Act.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 44, 78, 84, 101, 104 to 123 included, 126, 137, 157, 159, 180, 181 and 195?
I request, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 78-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of the interim reports of the Federal-Provincial Working Group on Costs of Welfare Programs, the Federal-Provincial Task Force on a Developmental Approach to Public Assistance, and the Federal-Provincial Study Group on Alienation, presented to the Federal-Provincial meeting of federal and provincial welfare ministers held in Victoria, British Columbia, on October 2 and 3, 1969.
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the interim reports
referred to in the hon. member's motion were prepared by working groups of federal and provincial officials at the direction of the federal and provincial ministers of welfare.
The reports were presented to a federal-provincial conference held in Victoria, B.C. on October 2 and 3, 1969. The decision taken at that conference was that the reports are of an

November 26, 1969
Motions for Papers
interim nature only and should not be released. Under the circumstances my minister is unable to table the papers requested and asks that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be withdrawn?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 84-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare who investigated the guaranteed annual income plan introduced in New Jersey in the United States.
Stanley Haidasz: I have been requested by my minister to inform the hon. member that while officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare have secured descriptive material on the New Jersey guaranteed annual income plan and have had some conversations with officials in the United States, no investigation has been carried out to date concerning the plan. Such an investigation would not be warranted at this time because the plan is still in its initial phase and no report has been prepared. Under the circumstances, my minister requests that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it and reword it to meet the point the Parliamentary Secretary has made.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the cost-benefit study on the Queen Elizabeth telescope project referred to by the President of the Treasury Board in Hansard on March 19, 1969, page 6842.
James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, the cost-benefit study referred to by the President of the Treasury Board is the report by Dr. Rose for which there is agreement to table in response to motion No. 92, also in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. In view of this perhaps there would be agreement to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion
be withdrawn?


Mr. Orlikow:: I agree.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 104
Mr. Skoberg:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all outside consultant studies undertaken for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as mentioned in answer to Question No. 1,323, tabled on June 25, 1969, as reported in Hansard on page 10597.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that last week I suggested to the hon. member that since he had put a further series of motions pursuant to my suggestion, specifying more clearly which of the over one thousand consultative reports involved in motions 104 to 123 he desired, the hon. member might like to withdraw these motions 104 to 123. I wonder if he has now made a decision in that regard?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, with regard to No. 104 I would presume to say that the consumers of this nation are paying for the cost of these consultant studies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There should be no debate. If the hon. member will not withdraw the motion it will stand for debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member's view is the same with regard to the remaining 18 and if it might be appropriate to treat them all in one package and transfer them all for debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The notices of motions
referred to by the President of the Privy Council are transferred for debate.
November 26, 1969


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, with regard to No. 105 the same applies. With regard to the rest of them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These notices of motions have been transferred for debate at the request of the government.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was only discussing No. 104 in the first instance. That is the only one on which I call for a vote at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can call for a vote but if the government asks that it be transferred for debate that is where it goes.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the hon.
member did not make clear what he wants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member was suggesting that 104 and 105 be transferred for debate or voted on and that the rest be dropped. I think that is what he was seeking to do.


Mr. Speaker:: If this is the hon. member's wish, there is no difficulty. It is agreed that 104 and 105 are transferred for debate and the subsequent notices of motions are withdrawn. Is this what the hon. member wishes?


John Leroy Skoberg: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, and it would have been clear if I had been given time to explain.
Motions Nos. 104 and 105 transferred for debate.
Motions Nos. 106 to 123 inclusive withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 126-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding pollution levels at Toronto International Airport.
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, the Department of
National Health and Welfare is providing technical assistance to a study being carried out by the province of Ontario for the Department of Transport at the Toronto International Airport. As no report has been issued by the Department of National Health and Welfare my minister requests that the hon. member withdraw his motion.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion
be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
DESIGNATED REGIONS, BRITISH COLUMBIA Motion No. 137-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia regarding the selection of designated regions under the new Regional Development Incentives Act.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the government would be agreeable to accepting this motion but there is no such correspondence to lay before the House. This applies to similar motions Nos. 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 and 147. I have spoken to the hon. member and in view of the circumstances he may wish to withdraw these motions.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, the legislation calls for consultation with provinces; the Order in Council says that such consultations have taken place. Thus I am amazed at the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member can be amazed but he cannot tell us so; he can only indicate whether he wishes the motion transferred, put to a vote or withdrawn.


John Stratford Burton: In consequence of the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary I should like to have motion 141 transferred for debate and I would give my consent to withdraw the other motions.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the hon. member he suggests that motion No. 141 be transferred for debate and that motions 137, 139, 141, 142-perhaps the hon. member would indicate again for the guidance of the Chair the motion he wants transferred for debate.


John Stratford Burton: I wish to have motion No. 141 transferred for debate. I would ask that motions 137, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145 and 147 be withdrawn. The Parliamentary Secretary did

November 28, 1969
Motions for Papers
not refer to No. 146, but if the same circumstance applies I would consent to have that motion withdrawn also.


Mr. O'Connell:: It does apply.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 141 transferred for debate.
Motions Nos. 137, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 and 147 withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 157-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre):
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the consultant study by Professor G. Paquette of Carleton University on Canada's Unemployment Insurance Program.
Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, Professor G. Paquet of Carleton University participated as a member of a team reviewing long-term plans for the unemployment insurance program. The Unemployment Insurance Commission produced working papers as a basis for recommendations which are the subject of consideration by the government as indicated in the Speech from the Throne. These working documents were not designed for publication but as a basis for developing proposals with the Minister of Labour. The substance of these proposals will be presented in the form of a white paper. On this assurance, perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may wish to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: would prefer that the motion stand until we have seen the white paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 159-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the list of actual appeal procedures prepared by the Department of National Health and Welfare for use by the provincial governments in connection with the Canada Assistance Plan.
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, no list of actual appeal procedures has been prepared by the Department of National Health and Welfare for use

by the provincial governments in connection with the Canada Assistance Plan. The development of such procedures is the responsibility of the provinces. Under agreements made pursuant to the Canada Assistance Plan, the provinces are obligated to provide by law procedures for appeals from decisions with respect to applications for and the provision of assistance, by persons affected by such decisions. A copy of existing procedures, as set out in provincial assistance statutes and regulations, was tabled in the House on October 22, 1969. Under the circumstances the hon. member is requested to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Baldwin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with this procedure. So long as hon. members on my left possess a certain degree of curiosity which the government is unable to satisfy, these motions will appear on the Order Paper. I submit that under our Standing Orders there can be no debate. What we have been hearing today is a series of miniature debates. With deference, I contend that the courses open to the government are clear: there is a right to accept a motion, to have it transferred for debate or to reject it. One of these courses should be taken without all these explanations.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have been following a far more sensible way of carrying on our business, that it is far better for an explanation to be given publicly in order that hon. members may be satisfied as to the reasons for having a motion dropped. I suggest, too, that this practice comes well within the rules and that it should be continued.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is not within the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the point made by both hon. members is well taken. I have had occasion previously to suggest to Parliamentary Secretaries that their explanations be as brief as possible so as not to lead to unnecessary debate. It is a question of judgment in each instance whether the House is engaging in debate or is being given a brief explanation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretaries or ministers who think it necessary to give explanations will keep such explanations as brief as possible. Motion 159 is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
November 26, 1969


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 180-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
Norih Cenire):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Department of Labour's review of the minimum wage and its effect on the Canadian economy referred to by the Minister of Labour on November 3, 1969, as recorded in Hansard at page 402.
James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Mr. Speaker, the study was prepared as a confidential internal working paper for the use of members of the Department of Labour. The motion cannot, therefore, be accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you put the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 181-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a return showing a list of all employers who have applied for deferment in respect to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code showing (a) those which have been approved (b) those which have been rejected
(c)	those to which consideration is still being given
(d)	the number of workers employed by each of these employers.
James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Mr. Speaker, the list referred to in the motion would take an inordinate amount of time to prepare since it would involve individual listings of more than 5,000 employers. The motion therefore cannot be accepted.
We would have no difficulty, however, in making available to the hon. member statistical information on the numbers and disposition of applications for deferment under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, which would not include names of specific employers but could be broken down by industrial categories. This could be done either informally or, if preferred, in response to a question on the order paper or a motion for the production of papers.


David Orlikow: That would be agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry PROJECT AND ESTIMATE REDUCTIONS
Motion No. 195-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of (a) all projects postponed, suspended, delayed or cancelled as a result of the program reductions announced by the Prime Minister on August 13, 1969 (b) all estimates which were reduced as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement, together with the total amount of reduction.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, motion for production of papers No. 195 is acceptable to the government, but as far as part (b) of the motion is concerned I would like to inform the hon. member that there are no reduced estimates for the 1969-70 fiscal year as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement.


John Stratford Burton: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motion 195 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada that total exports of wheat and flour are not likely to exceed 360 million bushels by 1975, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is changing the policy that the right hon. gentleman promised on June 2, 1968, at Winnipeg of raising the export figure to 430 million bushels of wheat per year?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it has not changed our expectations but it may change the possibility of fulfilling them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that our exports at current
1264	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry levels, in the context of existing government policy, mean bankruptcies for farmers across the west, is the government of Canada considering positively the appeals by several western agricultural associations for immediate cash assistance either in the form of acreage payments or in some other form, or is it the view of the government of Canada today that these bankruptcies will solve the agricultural problems in the west?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the fact that Computel Systems Limited of Ottawa has been taken over by University Computer Company of Dallas, which means that three fledgling Canadian companies in the computing industry have now been taken over by United States companies, bringing to 80 per cent United States control of this industry in Canada. What action does the government propose to take in view of the fact the computer industry is of increasing importance in a technological society?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should be pleased to look into the particular situation raised by the hon. member. I do not think we have any constitutional jurisdiction to do anything about this particular industry. I would be glad to look into the matter but I do not believe we really have any jurisdiction.


Mr, Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that one of the minister's predecessors, Mr. Walter Gordon, has just made a speech advocating a 30 per cent takeover tax, may I ask the minister whether the government is considering the possibility of imposing such a tax as a means of deterring these takeovers by foreign investors?


Edgar John Benson: I will consider this to about the same degree as my hon. friend is considering the suggestions of Mr. Watkins.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question regarding the study which is being made in his department of the takeover of financial institutions. Will the report on this matter be available fairly soon?

DEBATES	November 26, 1969


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have the report in the fairly near future. I am also waiting for a report being prepared by the stock exchanges in this regard. In the interim I understand they have stopped the transfer of seats to foreigners.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister to indicate whether or not the frequently promised Canada Development Corporation will be established in time to act in this situation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it would not be the intention for the Canada Development Corporation to act in such a situation, but it is our intention to proceed with the Canada Development Corporation in the very near future.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is prompted by a previous answer. I think I heard him say that a 30 per cent take-over tax was about as probable as the adoption of the Watkins manifesto by the NDP. In view of that answer, would the minister say whether we might expect legislation for the introduction of a 30 per cent take-over tax by Christmas?


Edgar John Benson: I believe the hon. member misunderstood my previous answer.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Minister of Labour and the government to introduce legislation to increase the minimum wage to $1.65 an hour? If so, when may we expect the introduction of such legislation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I said about two weeks ago in answer to a similar question that at the present moment we in the Department of Labour are studying this whole question of minimum wages. We have come to no firm conclusion. I read the same newspaper report, and I might say that when such legislation is to be introduced it will be introduced in the proper manner in the House of Commons.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the committee reviewing minimum wages recommended to the minister and the government
November 26, 1969

that the minimum wage should be increased to $1.65 an hour?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, in order to be as fully informed as possible I have no less than three departmental committees reporting to me on the subject, and each has made different recommendations.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he is aware that Greyhound Lines of Canada, Limited, a subsidiary of Chicago based Greyhound Incorporated, has announced its intention to buy Canadian Coachways, Limited? If so, what steps is the government taking to ascertain whether this proposed takeover by a United States firm of an established and profitable Canadian company is in the best interests of the Canadian public?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the announcement so I will have to look into the matter.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question which might be directed either to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the Canadian Transport Commission to call for public hearings on this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if my memory
serves me right the CTC can investigate such transactions provided they are formally called to its attention in the form of a complaint by someone of the general public. If that happens I am sure the Commission will look into this matter.



INFLATION-NICKEL PRICE INCREASE-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the increase in the price of nickel. In view of the fact that the third company has now increased its price of nickel and the president of Chrysler has indicated that this will result in higher automobile prices, will the minister say what specific action he is taking to investigate these industries in order that these price rises can be contained?
21545-10}
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we are not investigating these industries. I said in the House the other day something about plans for discussing with the House Leader the possibility of establishing a committee to study the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission which is an independent body entitled to look into whatever sectors it sees fit.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's refusal to take any action in this regard, would he be prepared to make arrangements for a debate so we can look into the usefulness of his department since it seems to be doing nothing at all?


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since we are on the question of mining I should like to refer to a problem in the mining town of Grande Cache.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We seem to be going from one supplementary question to another, none of which seems to be related to the previous question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question arising out of the position in which our forces in Germany, other than the air division, find themselves as a consequence of the upgrading of the value of the Deutschmark. This means to each member of the armed forces a loss of 8J per cent. What is the government going to do to assure that those members affected will not lose any of their income as a result of conditions actually beyond their control?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, there has been an extensive study of this matter by senior officers overseas and officers at CFHQ at Ottawa. As a result of a survey of accommodation on the economy some amendments may be recommended. Otherwise there will be no changes in allowances generally since they are related to the cost of living in Ottawa. I can give an undertaking that I will make sure no inequities occur.


John George Diefenbaker: When the minister says the government has amendments in mind,
1266	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry does he mean amendments that will remove this unjust anomaly in so tar as the allowances of those in the armed forces are concerned?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I said some amendments relating to the allowances of those living on the economy who are the ones really feeling the impact of the revaluation of the Mark.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development wears two hats, so to speak, I wonder whether I might pose two questions. In light of the recent decision of the Metis Association of Alberta to found a national association to deal with Metis problems, is the minister considering granting funds to aid the new organization as he has done for other Indian groups?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Indian Act applies to those who are listed in it and have the Indian status under that act. The department under my direction can assist only those Indians.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reply, will he consult with his colleagues in order to find some other means of assisting this new organization?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I shall be glad to study that question, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the announced plans of the railways to increase the rate on shipments of potash by about 6 per cent, would the minister say whether he has directed or will direct that an investigation be made by the Canadian Transport Commission?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
DEBATES	November 26, 1969
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of
Transpori): Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware the Premier of Saskatchewan has indicated he is going to talk directly to the two railways. It might be better to await the result of those discussions first.


John Leroy Skoberg: Would the minister say
whether he would advise the CTC to be represented at these discussions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENSIONS


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I had a question for the President of the Treasury Board and you suggested that I withhold it until his return to the House today. Therefore I now ask the President of the Treasury Board what progress is being made with respect to a possible increase in the pensions of superannuated civil servants and does the minister expect a decision on this issue before Christmas or the end of this year?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the answer I gave to a similar question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I said that this is a subject of considerable concern to the government and it is being looked at in the light of the over-all review of social policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he is still full of hope, as he was the last time he answered this question, that something will be done before Christmas?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should have attached my hopefulness to the Christmas season. It was a generally expressed hope.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the study the minister speaks of also includes a study of the pension situation of superannuated members of the RCMP and also ex-members of the armed forces?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It does.
November 26, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	1267
Inquiries of the Ministry
THE CANADIAN ECONOMY	of the question is that the minister was being
asked whether he would make a statement on inflation-voluntary restraint-inquiry motions. I suggest to him the statement AS to additional policies	should not be made at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs this question. In view of the widespread price increases which are taking place and the obvious violations of the principle of restraint he has enunciated in the House, has he received any recommendation from the Prices and Incomes Commission concerning policies which ought to be adopted in addition to the policy of voluntary restraint?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. The commission, apart from the studies it is conducting, is still endeavouring to negotiate a package of restraint with the union, business and farm groups.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister's intention to refer a number of the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission to a committee of the House of Commons an indication that the government does not know how to combat inflation and is passing on this question to a committee of the House?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that there have been price increases in respect of steel, cars, oil and now nickel, and in view of the fact that the minister seems to be uncertain whether or not these increases are being studied by the Prices and Incomes Commission, is the minister prepared to make a statement on motions telling the House which of these price increases are being studied by the Prices and Incomes Commission and what the outcome of these investigations has been?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is public knowledge that the Prices and Incomes Commission announced some weeks ago that it is studying the recent increases in steel prices. Apart from that it is endeavouring to negotiate a general package of restraint. So far as the oil situation which the hon. member mentioned is concerned, I met on Wednesday and Thursday of last week with the chief executive officers of Gulf Oil and Imperial Oil and asked them to defer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but my understanding


An hon. Member:: He has nothing to say anyway.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In making that statement would the minister indicate whether the government has come up with some weapon other than unemployment and bankruptcy to deal with inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REPERCUSSIONS FROM ST. PIERRE- MIQUELON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Is the government presently doing studies in order to find out what would be the repercussions in Canada of the development project in St. Pierre and Miquelon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that such studies are under way.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Government House Leader. Bearing in mind the minister's great interest in the standing committees of the House and especially their reports, would the minister at the earliest possible date arrange for an organizational meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development so that the committee can elect a chairman and get on with the very important work facing it?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion will reach the ears of those responsible for the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Qu'appelle-Moose Mountain.
November 26, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Government House Leader. Would the minister take the House into his confidence and let the House know just who is responsible for arranging organizational meetings of the committees?



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the Canadian Transport Commission's formula on railway costing, which is now being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Canadian Pacific Railway, be fully defended by the government and has top legal counsel been employed or will top legal counsel be employed by the government to that end?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice concerning the detail, but as I have said in many answers in respect of the Canadian Transport Commission I think the various procedures are laid out and are well known. However, I shall investigate just how this matter is to be defended before the Supreme Court.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the criticism that has been levelled against the government's resettlement program in Newfoundland, would the minister agree to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope the committee will be able to meet as soon as the House returns in January.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the Economic Council of Canada estimates that

somewhat more than one-fifth of all Canadians live in poverty and the fact that the minister knows where it is possible for a Canadian to live on $30 a week, will the minister inform the House where these places are so that people may move?


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's very dismal showing in kicking off the football at last year's Grey Cup game, can he say whether he is taking any lessons for this year's kick-off ceremony? If he should need any lessons I would be very glad to help him out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the Department of Fisheries completed its investigation of the heavy kill of whitefish which took place in the west arm of Kootenay Lake over two months ago? If so, what was the cause of the heavy fish kill and what steps have been taken or recommended to prevent the recurrence of a similar disaster?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this question might be placed on the Order Paper.



NATIONAL REVENUE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom this question should be directed, to the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance. There is a serious situation on the prairies among farmers whose estates owe succession duty. They have lots of wheat on hand but no money and are unable to get credit. In view of its control over the wheat problem through the Wheat Board, will the government give consideration to the acceptance of wheat in payment of succession duties?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that question was asked, perhaps in another form, just recently.
November 26, 1969



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and I gave him notice of it a few days ago. Can the hon. gentleman advise what the proposed formula is for cost-sharing on highway programs with the Atlantic provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this question is of a very general nature. I think it could very well be placed on the Order Paper or debated at the time of adjournment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the recent announcement by Mackenzie Valley Research Limited that it is carrying on work to determine whether a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Edmonton is economically feasible, is the minister taking steps to ensure that the over-all ecological balance of the north is not sacrificed in this type of commercial development?
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether on a question of privilege I could compliment the Prime Minister and most of the senior ministers who are present on their good taste in the colour of their ties today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On November 17 I asked him if he would have the price increases for fuel oil in western Canada investigated, and in his reply he said that all the companies had not yet implemented price increases. In view of the fact that as of this date virtually all of the oil companies have increased prices, would he have the effects of this action on farm production costs investigated?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday and Thursday of last week I asked the chief executives of Gulf and Imperial Oil to defer price increases. The announcements made since then indicate that they are not prepared to go along with such requests. As the hon. member knows, there is no power within the federal government to control these prices.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would reconsider the question I asked him. I asked him whether he would have the results of these increases on farm costs and on the farming community investigated?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated in the House the other day, we are anxious to establish general policies. We have been following general policies to contain inflation. The Minister of Finance will pursue those policies and persist in those policies. As the Prime Minister indicated the other day, it might not serve such a useful purpose to examine every price increase made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that these increases, which have taken place almost simultaneously, cannot have been the result of coincidence and have all the appearance of a general agreement to mulct the Canadian public, what is the government going to do about prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act to put an end to this continual raising of prices and its unfairness to the Canadian People?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the right hon. gentleman's comment that these seem to be unfair price increases, particularly in view of the fact that they were asked not to make them-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is a non sequitur.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The right hon. gentleman, having been Prime Minister of this country, knows that the Director of Research and Investigation under the Combines Investigation Act watches all significant price movements, and if there is evidence of breaching of the act he can be expected to act.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the position-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Saskatoon-Biggar on a point of order.
1270	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out to you and to the minister that the question I asked has not been answered. It was, would an investigation be made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order, but if the hon. member has a supplementary question I will return to him in a moment. For the moment I believe the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert has a supplementary.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the minister's edict or suggestion was not accepted and as he is convinced that any increase is wrong, will he bring to the attention of the organization established to meet such situations the need of action being taken, because everybody seems to be running wild in the matter of prices in Canada today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of his statement that the government has no power to deal with this matter, may I ask him whether he has at any time carried on any correspondence with the premiers of the various provinces on whether or not the provincial governments would be prepared to pass enabling legislation giving to the Prices and Incomes Commission the necessary power to deal with unjustified price increases?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that falls within the general financial policy of the government and should be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct it to the Minister of Finance.


Edgar John Benson: would like to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, again I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that these price increases are falling on an industry which is already in a depressed condition, will the minister investigate the effect of these increases on the farming industry in western Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the hon. member is merely repeating the question he originally

DEBATES	November 2S, 1969
asked. He may feel the question has not been answered, or has not been answered in a satisfactory manner, but he cannot simply repeat the question he asked previously.



SEEKING OF POWER TO INSTITUTE PRICE CONTROLS

Mr. Max  Bailsman@Waterloo: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Prime Minister to consider that every attempt to deal with the question of price increases has evoked an apology from the cabinet ministers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? The hon. member has been granted the floor and will be granted the floor again for the purpose of asking a question.


Max Saltsman: May I come to the specific question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: Will the Prime Minister in his discussions with the provincial premiers at the forthcoming conference seek the constitutional power for price controls in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the premiers of the various provinces suggesting that after the constitutional conference in December we have a further conference early in the new year, presumably in February, to discuss other matters of importance to Canada apart from the constitutional ones. I have received favourable replies from most of them, and I am in the process of sending out letters today suggesting that we look for dates for that meeting and items for the agenda. If the provinces are agreeable I think we would be very anxious to suggest the problem of inflation if it appears that the Prices and Incomes Commission has to report negatively on its efforts. This of course we hope will not happen. But should that happen and should the provinces be agreeable, we would be prepared at the federal level to discuss this very important matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Has the increase in prices by the oil companies violated any
November 26, 19S9

specific restraint suggested by the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as has been explained in the House almost every day, the Prices and Incomes Commission has been endeavouring to work out an acceptable formula of restraint. Until this has been negotiated and accepted they are not in a position to spell out specific terms of restraint.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary arising out of the assurance of the Prime Minister the other day that the Prices and Incomes Commission was suggesting specific restraints with regard to prices of 5 per cent and 2 J. per cent. Have these increases to which the minister referred violated the specific restraints suggested in this way?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, what the commission has been suggesting to business, trade unions and government, is various possible alternatives which would be acceptable at all levels. In the course of endeavouring to negotiate an acceptable package they have made several suggestions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three or four or five members rising for the purpose of asking supplementary questions on a subject on which hon. members have been asking questions for some 15 minutes. There are a number of other hon. members who have been waiting anxiously for an opportunity to get the floor. I think perhaps at this point we might give this opportunity to the hon. member for Moncton.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of recent announcements of curtailed services and substantial lay-offs by the C.N.R. in New Brunswick, will the minister assure the House that any decisions taken in transportation policy will not undermine the efforts of his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to maintain full employment in that area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will do my very best, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



URBAN RENEWAL GUIDELINES-DEPENDENCE ON URBAN AFFAIRS POLICY

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing is so slow in coming out with guidelines for urban renewal, can the Prime Minister state whether one of the reasons for this slowness is that the government wants to announce at the same time its general policy with respect to urban affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Paul Yewchuk: A question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that in recent days approximately 20 staff members have been laid off from the Alberta New Start Incorporated School in my home town of Lac la Biche, does this indicate that the minister now feels the project has served its purpose?


Jean Marchand: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.



STATUS OF NOVA SCOTIA NEW START PROGRAM

Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the Nova Scotia new start program is about to end its mandate soon, could the minister make a statement in the House on whether this program will be extended or abandoned?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that those are experimental programs, and as soon as the experience is completed, we will have to decide whether they are to be extended, increased, broadened or abolished.
November 26, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the President of the Treasury Board. I should like to test his hopefulness again. Can the minister say whether a decision will soon be made and announced regarding the federal government's participation in the medicare premiums of its employees and superannuates in view of the great cost of these premiums in some provinces, particularly here in Ontario?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In the chronological sense, I am much more hopeful.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


John Stratford Burton: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. Since the population of Saskatchewan fell by 6,000 during the past year, the only province to experience such a decline, and since it has also experienced a serious decline in the income level, is it the intention of the government to extend or add to the designated regions in that province established under the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this type of question ought to be placed on the Order Paper or asked at the time of adjournment. The minister might like to make a statement on motions about the matter.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. By his tie he could be a red Tory, but I am sure he is not. The question concerns the placing of that historic vessel, the Prince Edward Island, as an exhibit in two museums, in Ottawa and Prince Edward Island. Would he give consideration to having this fine old ship rest in one museum in one place? I could suggest such a place.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for debate
at the time of adjournment.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the evidence given by executives of Quebe-cair yesterday to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications indicating that Department of Transport facilities at Wabush, Labrador, are far from adequate for the safe landing of large aircraft, and in view of the tragedy near the airport recently, will the minister be making a statement soon in regard to this extremely urgent matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the evidence that was given to the committee, but I should like to inform the House that Mr. Arnold Slangen of Quebecair has indicated that the news stories have misquoted him. These stories are all I have seen, but I have asked for a transcript. I understand that I am to appear before the transport committee tomorrow morning, at which time I will be glad to make a statement.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy participating in the question period finale, though I seldom have enough breath left to put my question. My question is addressed to the Secretary of State. Given the urgent situation created by the sale of Windsor television station CKLW and the further Americanization of Canadian airwaves, plus the concentration of the communications media in Canada, would the minister make a statement on motions indicating what action either he or the CBC intends to take in this regard?


Gérard Pelletier: am quite ready to consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



LAW REFORM


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice, just in case he feels lonely or ignored. Has the minister set up the permanent law reform
November 26, 1969



commission and, if not, when does he expect
to set it up?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to introduce legislation after Christmas.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. May I ask him whether the new chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation has been appointed and, if not, when we may expect such appointment?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he has not yet been chosen. As soon as we find someone whose qualifications are at least comparable to those of Mr. Fullerton, we shall appoint him. However, I cannot give any indications in this regard at the present time.

HIRING OF EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with respect to Devco. Last week I asked the minister whether he would examine the question of hiring employees from overseas. Has he looked into the matter and can he suggest any remedy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there has been a freeze on hirings at Devco as well as in most government departments and Crown Corporations for over a year. In fact, only one person has been hired, this was an immigrant who had been in Canada for over six months and who was a supervisor. I do not have any further information about the hiring of foreigners at Devco.


Mr. Maclnnis:: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister something to say?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period is just about to expire.


Donald MacInnis: I would ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to get in touch
Excise Tax Act
with the Prime Minister who has a letter of complaint concerning these hirings. The person mentioned by the minister has not been in Cape Breton for the last six months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question period has expired.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 25, consideration in committee of Bill C-155, to amend the Excise Tax Act-Mr. Gray (for the Minister of Finance)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-155, to amend the Excise Tax Act. When the committee rose on Tuesday, November 25, 1969, clause 1 of the bill was being considered.
On clause 1-Definitions.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening when we were in committee the hon. member for Edmonton West made what I think is a very constructive suggestion as to our method of study of the bill before us. He drew to the attention of the committee the fact that clause 1 actually contains the major parts of the tax proposal in question. Clause 1 calls for the addition of a new Part II to the Excise Tax Act, and the new Part II is divided into a number of clauses. As I understand my hon. friend's proposal, it is that we deal with each of the clauses or paragraphs of the proposed new Part II in order and that we do not begin our discussion on any later clause or paragraph in Part II until we have concluded the discussion on the earlier paragraphs or clauses in question. I believe that is the procedure the committee used in the past when similar bills were being considered.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is it agreed that we proceed in this way?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: The discussion will begin on paragraph 8 (a)(1) of clause 1.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Chairman, in considering paragraph 8 it seems to me that we need some clarification as to just what type of air carrier will be caught by the provisions of the bill as it is drafted. We

November 28, 1969
Excise Tax Act
know that the standard commercial carrier is by definition and classification covered in paragraph 8(a) (1). We also find there foreign air carriers which are authorized to operate in Canada, and that part gives no great difficulty. I am wondering about the third category listed in the paragraph. Will that category take into consideration the type of operation furnished by an air service which forms part of a corporate structure; in other words, which is a subsidiary of a large corporation of business and which provides executive aircraft or employee transportation to any job?
Actually, as provided under the Aeronautics Act there is a book entry exchange that is related to the quantum of the depreciation of the aircraft in question. There is a payment off the cost of the aircraft which is sold by the parent company to the subsidiary and in return therefor the aircraft-owning subsidiary performs air carrier services for employees of the parent company. Is this kind of operation to be caught by the definition "certified air carrier", or are we going to have something else?
I am not suggesting that there is in any way a gap in the legislation, but in order that we may be certain, are such operations to be included? Also, will there be included what we may call arranged air transportation cases, as opposed to what we understand by commercially scheduled air services or major, recognized charter air services? That is, will charter services in the development areas, as well as those for tourism, hunting, and so on, be included? Is the minister in a position to give us an answer on that point?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the type of air service my hon. friend is referring to, an air service that is part of a corporate structure which is carrying on some type of general business operation, is not intended to be included. I understand this matter will fall under clause 5 of the regulations. I am referring to the commercial air service regulations under the Aeronautics Act. These types of aircraft would not, therefore, be among those which, if passengers were carried, would be subject to the tax.
Clause 8(a) of the bill deals with certain specific classes as set forth under the commercial or service regulations made under the Aeronautics Act. Perhaps I should read part of the subsection:
'certified air carrier' means (i) an air carrier that, pursuant to the Commercial Air Service Regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, is

authorized by the Canadian Transport Commission to operate as an air carrier or as a commercial air service under any one or more of the following classifications as described in those Regulations, that is to say: Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 (Groups AA and A), Class 8, Class 9-2, Class 9-3 and Class 9-4 (Groups AA and A);
If I am correct in assuming that this type of operation would fall under clause 5, as I am advised, the operation, as the hon. member describes it, would not be subject to the tax. If the committee desires, I would be happy to place on record a description of the types of operations covered by each of the classes that are among those included in clause 8(a) of the bill. If the committee wishes me to do so, I will read it, although it may be a rather lengthy procedure. I gather, Mr. Chairman, that there is such a disposition. These are the classes of carriers referred to in clause 8(a):
Class 1 air carriers, being air carriers authorized by the committee to operate a class 1 scheduled commercial air service between points within Canada.
Class 1 scheduled commercial air service, being the public transportation of persons, mails or goods by an air carrier serving specific points in accordance with a service schedule and at a toll per unit.
Class 2 air carriers, being air carriers authorized by the committee to operate a class 2 regular specific point commercial air service between points within Canada.
Class 2 regular specific point commercial air service, being the public transportation of persons, mails or goods by an air carrier serving specific points on a route pattern, with some degree of regularity and at a toll per unit.
Class	3	air carriers, being	air	carriers
authorized by the committee to operate a class 3 irregular specific point commercial air service between points within Canada.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Class 3 irregular specific point commercial air service, being the public transportation of persons, mails or goods by an air carrier, from a base, serving a specific point or points at a toll per unit.
Class	4	air carriers, being	air	carriers
authorized by the committee to operate a class 4 charter commercial air service within Canada.
Class	4	charter commercial	air	service,
being the public transportation of persons or goods by an air carrier, from the base or the protected base named in the licence of the air-
November 26. 1969

carrier, at a toll per mile or per hour for the charter of the entire aircraft, or at such other tolls as may be permitted by the committee.
Class 4, group AA, being commercial air services operated with fixed or rotating wing aircraft having a maximum authorized takeoff weight on wheels in excess of 35,000 pounds.
Class 4, group A, being commercial air services operated with fixed or rotating wing aircraft having a maximum authorized takeoff weight on wheels in excess of 18,000 pounds but not greater than 35,000 pounds.
Before passing on to class 8 may I digress and say I am advised that the effect of the proposal would be to exclude small aircraft providing charter service, those having a take-off weight of less than 18,000 pounds. I now move on to class 8.
Class 8 international air carriers, being domestic or foreign air carriers designated by the government of any state and authorized by the committee to operate an international scheduled air service between Canada and any other state, pursuant to an international agreement to which Canada is a party.
I would be happy to go on and read the other categories. In most cases they deal with international services. Perhaps with the consent of the committee I could undertake to have this printed in Hansard. If the committee prefers, I will read them. Since I gather it is the disposition of the committee for me to continue reading, I will do so.
Class 9-2 international non-scheduled air carriers, being domestic or foreign air carriers authorized by the committee to operate, between Canada and any other state, a commercial air service of a class performed by a class 2 air carrier.
Class 9-3 international non-scheduled air carriers, being domestic or foreign air carriers authorized	by	the	committee	to	operate,
between Canada and any other state, a commercial air service of a class performed by a class 3 air carrier.
Class 9-4 international non-scheduled air carriers, being domestic or foreign air carriers authorized	by	the	committee	to	operate,
between Canada and any other state, a commercial air service of a class performed by a class 4 air carrier.
Class 9-4, group AA, being commercial air services operated with fixed or rotating wing aircraft having a maximum authorized takeoff weight on wheels in excess of 35,000 pounds.
Excise Tax Act
Class 9-4, group A, being commercial air services operated with fixed or rotating wing aircraft having a maximum authorized takeoff weight on wheels in excess of 18,000 pounds but not greater than 35,000 pounds.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, I have covered all the classes listed in proposed paragraph (a) of the proposed new Part II.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this would tend to confirm the point that I was trying to make yesterday and, frankly, it is contrary to what the minister was trying to put to the House as justification for the ad valorem tax. I clearly indicated that a number of people will use air transport facilities as passengers but not necessarily cash passengers. They will use the airports, air transportation facilities and communications networks as much as anyone else, but they will not be paying any tax. That is why I make this additional argument that there should be a flat rate air departure tax. This would make more sense and would spread the burden equally.
If a business transports its personnel by its own aircraft, that is its own decision, but they are using air transport facilities. This should be a cost of their business in the same way as those personnel who are using regular scheduled aircraft. I can see there will be marginal operations wherein it will be of advantage to purchase a private aircraft in which to transport employees for business purposes. There is to be a 5 per cent tax, and if these passengers travel a great deal they will be removed from the clientele of the scheduled airlines and, in other areas, the charter services and the government will not receive the revenue contemplated by this bill.
I am not particularly anxious to see another tax imposed on the Canadian people, but if we are looking at an equitable base for a tax on the basis that it is required to pay for air transport facilities whether they be airports, terminals, runways or guidance systems-that is the take-off and landing facilities as well as the personnel that go with them, the radio beams that are maintained and all the safety features that go into Canada's air transport facilities-this should be a user tax. I agree that these costs should in part be borne by the traffic, but why not spread them evenly on the basis of a flat rate departure tax? This is done in many other major countries of the world. Air terminals such as the one serving London, which is very much larger than any we have in Canada, impose a departure tax. I have been through airports such as that and I

November 26, 1969
Excise Tax Act
have not experienced any great delay. The flat rate tax is either added on to the cost of your ticket as a separate item, or it is necessary to purchase a ticket as you go through the wicket; the collection is right there. In the majority of instances the airlines would not have to worry about the collection of this tax; it would be collected through the airport facilities. There are ways and means of doing this. I will come back to this matter when we are discussing paragraph 10.
The minister told us who will be covered under the certified air carriers provision. This indicates that there is a restricted base for the collection of the tax, and I believe it should be widened.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should attempt to deal with the hon. member's argument to some extent. We must not overlook the fact that owners of company and private aircraft in the category the hon. member mentioned make payments through landing fees and other charges at airports. The Minister of Finance in his budget statement said all these charges and fees are under review, and it could well be there will be appropriate increases where required in these fees. If it appears that people using this type of aircraft are not paying their fair share in comparison with passengers on the other classes of aircraft which are covered, the way to deal with that would be to make appropriate adjustments in the scale of landing fees and other charges for such aircraft.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I do not think the hon. member has had a chance to give the attention he might otherwise wish to give to the administrative difficulties involved in applying a departure tax. A departure tax would not necessarily catch company executives who are not entering through the main terminal building to take one of these plans; they might be using private terminals. Think of the multiplicity of staff and records which would be required to deal with this situation. It seems to me that a more positive approach in dealing with the category the hon. member has outlined would be by way of a review of the scale of user fees and charges.
I might refer to some of the things I said last night about the difficulties created when use is made of a departure tax, the inequities which could be caused for people who travel, say, between Vancouver and Halifax and who for one reason or another are obliged to stop

at more than one airport on the way. According to the hon. member's proposal, they would pay four taxes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member spoke of a departure tax from the airport. Each time a passenger lands he would have to get on another plane and depart.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is nonsense, and you know it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is a difficulty which has to be considered. Perhaps the hon. member can indicate a way of eliminating it. I do not think he has given the consideration he might otherwise wish to give to the problem of congestion which could be caused by collecting departure taxes, a problem which is increasingly evident at foreign airports and which is likely to increase seriously with the use of jumbo jets. I might say that the airlines which will be carrying the largest number of passengers have expressed the view that if there is to be a tax in this area, it should be in the form proposed rather than in the form of a departure tax, having regard to all the administrative difficulties.
As I said last night, the major airlines are already geared to collect a tax of a similar nature covering flights in the United States. If I am correctly advised of the views of the airlines in question, I submit we ought to give some weight, based on their practical experience, to views made available to the government when it was preparing the legislation which is before us today.


Mr. Simpson:: Did I understand the minister to say that passengers aboard aircraft with a capacity of less than 18,000 pounds would be exempt from this tax?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If the aircraft is in the charter category.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to clear this question up, because that is one of the major categories. I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. Am I correct in assuming that aircraft in charter service and which have a capacity of less than 18,000 pounds will be exempt from the requirement to be certified as an air carrier? I refer particularly to charter services for oil prospecting in the Northwest Territories, or for hunting.
There are a great number of these operations and, frankly, the facilities provided by the Department of Transport are less than
November 26, 1969

rudimentary. There may be a dock; there will certainly be a radio connection, but that is about all. There will be a dock at the point of departure but from there on the aircraft land on floats. The Department of Transport provides few or no services. If these people have to pay an additional 5 per cent of whatever may be the transportation fee in outlying areas, where the fee is already very high, I would invite the minister and the officials of the department to become absorbed in a program of that type and find out how long they would refrain from protesting against such an obvious injustice. I am referring to equating a service of this type with that of a scheduled transport service provided by one of the major air carriers.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is my understanding that the effect of the exclusion from the definition of certified air carrier would mean that at the very least a substantial proportion of air travel in isolated areas would not be subject to this tax. Perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to read into the record a list of the types of carriers excluded from the definition of certified air carrier; it might help to clear the air in this area of concern. This is the list of types of carrier excluded from the definition of certified air carrier: Class 4 not in groups AA and A.
These are carriers authorized to operate a charter service in Canada by means of aircraft with a maximum authorized take-off weight of less than 18,000 pounds. This would exclude from the definition of certified air carrier a wide range of aircraft used for charter services in the north, including Otter, Twin Otter, Beaver, Norseman, Sky van and Gruman Goose aircraft as well as virtually all helicopters now in use.
The next is class 5. These are carriers authorized to operate a contract commercial air service, being the transportation of persons or goods by air solely in accordance with one or more specific contracts. An example would be Hollinger Ungava Air Transport which was set up by the Iron Ore Company of Canada to transport freight and individuals by air during the construction of the railway to its iron ore project in Quebec and Labrador. Another example would be Hudson's Bay Air Transport Limited. These carriers must serve one or a group of related companies. I understand there are not many of these carriers.
Next is class 6. These are carriers authorized to operate a flying club commercial air service, being an air service providing flying
Excise Tax Act
training and recreational flying to the members of clubs incorporated as non-profit organizations.
Then class 7. These are carriers authorized to operate a specialty service such as cropdusting, aerial surveys, fire-fighting.
The next is class 9-5. These are international, non-scheduled air carriers authorized to operate between Canada and any other state a commercial service in accordance with one or more specific contracts. An example is Hudson's Bay Air Transport Limited.
Then there is class 9-7. There are international, non-scheduled air carriers authorized to operate between Canada and any other state a specialty air service. I understand there are very few of these.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, although I am pleased to hear the minister outline some of the types of air carriers which would be exempt from this tax, I still assert that in many respects this is discriminatory legislation as far as people living in isolated areas of northern Canada are concerned. The minister has endeavoured to show that in a large number of these communities the air transportation of passengers is carried out by means of planes of the smaller type, and generally this is so. However, he should remember that we do enjoy regular scheduled flights; this is the case in my own province of Manitoba, at least. Passengers have the choice between air transportation or an exceedingly long train journey when they wish to reach the more populated areas of the province. Fares are high enough as it is, yet here we find a tax being imposed on people who are pretty well obliged to use the type of transportation we are now considering. The minister pointed out that in many of these outlying places only the smaller type of plane is used.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In many isolated areas of northern Manitoba the province has constructed, at its own expense, landing-strips that are capable of handling fairly large aircraft, aircraft which, I can assure the minister, are capable or carrying more than 18,000 pounds. This 5 per cent tax will go into the federal treasury, and I presume the Department of Transport will reap some benefit from it through the estimates.
During the course of the last seven years we have been requesting the Department of Transport to assist in the construction of airstrips in these isolated and outlying areas of northern Manitoba, but without success.

November 26, 1369
Excise Tax Act
Despite this, some 15 airstrips have been constructed by the northern affairs department of the province of Manitoba. I assume that no consideration has been given to passing on part of this 5 per cent tax to the province, which has to bear much of the cost of maintaining these airstrips.
We also require air transportation services between such places as Churchill and Winnipeg. The minister may point out that other modes of transportation are available, but Canadian National Railways have already made application to withdraw their passenger service between these two points. Although they may not do so for some time, when they do it will be absolutely essential to maintain air services between these two points.
I agree that some form of taxation or some assessment can justifiably be imposed upon those who use the facilities of the Department of Transport, such as air terminals, airfields and runways in various parts of Canada. Although, as I have mentioned, in the northern parts of the province of Manitoba some of the runways have been constructed by the province, the Department of Transport is going to impose a 5 per cent tax on all aircraft exceeding 18,000 pounds capacity which use them.
I think the minister should take another look at this situation. I would also point out that the only mode of transportation between Churchill and Yellowknife, Edmonton and Yellowknife and on to the Northwest Territories is aircraft. This bill will discriminate against people travelling in northern areas who are obliged to travel by air.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I see another hon. member rising but perhaps I could first reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Churchill. As I understand it, the airstrips built by the province of Manitoba to which he referred, are of a rather basic type. All the air traffic control and navigational facilities, as well a meteorological facilities, are provided by the federal Department of Transport. To this extent, therefore, the people using the airstrips benefit from these services.
People flying from these airstrips to cities like Winnipeg would benefit by using the facilities at the airports which this tax will be used to help maintain. Let us not forget, as I said yesterday evening, that the sole purpose of the tax is not the maintenance or expansion of airport buildings or runways; I understand it will be used to help pay for the whole range of services that are provided by the federal Department of Transport in the

field of air transportation. Therefore, when assessing what benefit people in the areas to which my hon. friend referred will derive from this tax, one should bear in mind that they will use the facilities provided by the Department of Transport and any expansion or improvement thereto that may be brought about. I remind the hon. member that charter aircraft of less than 18,000 pounds take-off weight are not subject to this tax.


Robert Simpson: I do not want to belabour the point, Mr. Chairman, or to get into an argument with the minister. I agree that the Department of Transport is providing navigational aids at airstrips built in northern Manitoba, but I wish he would talk this matter over with his colleague the Minister of Communications. I have been urging the minister during the last few days to do something to improve the mail service in these areas. Although there is daily use of these airstrips in northern Manitoba, the mail carriers sometimes claim they cannot land because of bad weather. They have not complained of lack of navigational aids, but they have indicated that bad weather has prevented their landing.
I should like to know whether the Department of Transport feels that these navigational aids are adequate, and that lack of adequate facilities is not the reason mail carriers are unable to land on these strips.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief on this bill which seeks to impose a transportation tax. I want to lend my support to those colleagues of mine who have voiced protest at the nature of the tax. I, like other hon. members, agree with the principle that services provided at airports should be paid for on a self-liquidating basis, but at the same time I feel that the bill has a discriminatory feature. 1 do not agree with the ad valorem tax; I lean more toward supporting a per capita tax. Other hon. members have remarked on the fact that the per capita tax is applied in other countries across the world, and I do not understand why simply because our great neighbour to the south happens to apply an ad valorem tax we should also adopt this principle.
I recently had the honour to be delegated by the House to attend the 15th annual conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the British West Indies. While there I had occasion to do a little travelling by aeroplane, and I noticed that a per capita tax was applied at the airports.
Mention was also made of the fact that the operators of small aircraft in the north, those
November 26, 1969

plying between isolated points and areas of greater population, would suffer a penalty as a result of this ad valorem tax.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In the majority of cases the small aircraft used to convey people and goods out of the North and other peripheral areas of Canada fly only part of a longer journey; they fly to places such as Edmonton, Churchill or Calgary where the passengers then board other aircraft operated by Air Canada or CPA to complete their journeys. These people will be penalized by having to pay this ad valorem tax. We must remember that the cost to these people is a great deal more on long flights whether or not it is broken down into two or three strips on different air carriers. This is particularly true if they are travelling to Toronto or Montreal; the expense involved is much greater than it is to the people who live in the more populated areas of Canada.
Let me remind hon. members of the application before the Transport Commission in respect of passenger services in western Canada. These people who as a result of then-isolation from the major cities of Canada have to travel to eastern Canada on business, will have to pay more. The nature of their business demands that they travel by air. This ad valorem tax will discriminate against them. There are many other arguments that could be made, but at this time I should just like to support my colleagues in objecting to what I feel is a discriminatory measure. I support a per capita tax but not an ad valorem tax.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I heard the hon. member for Churchill say that he did not want to argue with the minister. After listening toi the replies of the minister I feel more and more inclined to argue with him. This bill was obviously drafted in a vacuum at the Department of Finance, without any real understanding of air travel in Canada.
Let us go back to the beginnings of this bill. I remember when the then Minister of Transport, now the president of the Canadian Transport Commission, discussed the principles of the Transportation Act in this House. He spoke about the idea of user charges; in other words, that the people using transportation facilities provided out of public funds should within reason be required to pay for that use. There may not be a great deal of quarrel among members of the House on that principle, but there may be argument as to how and when it should be applied.
Excise Tax Act
When one looks at this bill with the idea that it embodies a flat percentage charge on the amount paid for air transportation in Canada, you begin to realize how completely inequitable it is. I could see some ground in equity for this principle if it were applied to class 1 airlines operating on major airline routes in Canada. We have heard a lot from the Minister of Transport about the increasing costs of operating and developing major air terminals in Canada. Any one of us who has had occasion to use the existing services can visualize what will be required because of the advent of jumbo jets. If the spokesmen of the Department of Transport are talking about these things, they make some sense. When you refer to the users of class 3 airline services, as this bill does, and put them in the same class as users of class 1 services it should be apparent, even to the minister from a metropolitan region of Ontario who is piloting this bill through the House, just how absurd and ridiculous it is.
I could bring into this chamber a whole stack of correspondence from my constituents. They invariably argue about airlines rates. I received one letter recently which was generated by the air transport committee. My constituent documented evidence in support of the fact that in some parts of Canada you can travel 2,000 miles by air for what it costs my constituents to travel 200 miles by air. This means that the people who are travelling 200 miles between small communities in my constituency have to pay the same tax as those who travel by air from Vancouver to Winnipeg.
The operators using small planes have a greater understanding of this situation, and they point out that the economics of their operation is such that it is essential the rate per mile be greater. This is particularly so of a plane carrying passengers on a route with stops at 20 mile intervals, when compared with one operating on a 2,000 mile route with no interval stops and carrying ten, 15 or 20 times the number of passengers.
The more one examines this principle of a percentage tax levied across the board on the amount paid, the more apparent it becomes that this bill is a completely inequitable approach when dealing with a problem for which most members of this House have sympathy. This problem was outlined previously by the Minister of Transport. Apparently the Minister of Transport has suggested to the cabinet that there is a case to be made for a user charge in respect of the rising cost of providing and maintaining terminal facilities

November 26, 1969
Excise Tax Act
for those travelling by air. One could repeat the suggestion that by and large it is the well-to-do element of our population which travels by air, and this is generally true if one ignores those areas of Canada wherein people have no alternate method of travel no matter how wealthy they are.
Let us consider the man who must take his children 200 miles to the dentist, as compared with the man who can get on a streetcar, travel by highway or by train: keeping this in mind, it should become apparent to hon. members that this Bill is not the answer to the problem of meeting the rising costs of air terminal facilities in Canada.
I was a member of the northern affairs committee which made the first trip across the Arctic. I understand the committee has made two or three visits since then. Anyone who has travelled across the Arctic is aware of the feeling of the people of the north regarding transportation costs.
I have listened to many statements made in this House by the minister which indicated it will be a long time before there is another avenue of transportation available to people who live and work in our northern areas. I see the hon. member for Fort William is in his seat. He was the chairman of the committee which first travelled across the north. I hope before this discussion ends he will confirm the truth of what I am saying. We heard one recurring theme regarding the opening of the north: it was in relation to the need for considering the high cost of transportation of goods and passengers in that area. In spite of that, what is this minister asking the House to do in this bill? He is asking us to add a flat rate increase of 5 per cent to the cost of travel for practically all those people who live in the 35 per cent to 40 per cent part of Canada which is north of the provinces.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We listened the other day to a discussion about constitutional development. There was a debate on it in the House. There are pros and cons in respect of that subject. This point has no direct connection with the subject matter of the bill, but I would point out that if the government intends to pursue this kind of direction in its taxing policies, the question of the constitutional development of the north is apt to become rather academic because no one will be able to afford to live north of the 60th parallel. These are the types of issue which appear in this bill which the minister thinks is a rather simple method of raising revenue in order to meet the rising cost of the

provision of airport facilities, terminal and otherwise, by the Department of Transport.
I could spend some time explaining that many people, certainly those in my constituency, receive from the Department of Transport very little in the way of services. I realize that the carriers are licensed by officials of the Department of Transport who presumably enforce the regulations to ensure that planes are safe, and so on. I am not denying that the operators and users of planes flying on class 3 routes around the coast do not receive some benefit from the operations of the Department of Transport. Those, however, are not the costs which have been referred to by supporters of the government; they mentioned the increased cost of major airport terminals.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I said, not once but several times, that the yield of this tax is to be applied not simply to the cost of major terminals but to the whole range of services provided by the Department of Transport in the field of air transportation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I heard the minister say that. He said that terminals and other air travel facilities provided by the Department of Transport were to be covered. But the genesis of the idea of a user charge providing additional revenue was in a debate in this House about the rising cost of air terminal facilities. I am sure the minister was in the House when that discussion was taking place. It was not too long ago. If he does not believe me, let him consult Hansard or the president of the Canadian Transport Commission. I am sure the gist of what I am attempting to put before the House willl be verified by Mr. Pickersgill.
Mr. Chairman, I was about to say I recognize that some of the services provided by the Department of Transport are for people who use class 3 licensed carrier routes, to take an example of one of the classes which is included. But by and large in my area, and over a large part of Canada, this type of plane flies under visual-flight rules. In most cases there are no terminal facilities. In some cases, so far as float-type planes are concerned, there are little docks which can be used by the public.
I see in the House the Solicitor General, who is a former minister of transport. He might recall my showing him one of these floats in my constituency when he opened a terminal at which jet aircraft have landed although it is not a jet aircraft terminal. There are some facilities provided, but I am
November 26, 1969

sure the Solicitor General would agree that these are rather primitive and inexpensive facilities. These are the facilities provided to the people who under the terms of this bill will pay the most per capita for their air travel.
As this bill is drafted, the people who receive the least will pay the most. I submit that the minister ought to concede this is not a fair principle of taxation to apply to Canadians or, for that matter, to any other people. I hope the minister will take some of these matters into consideration. I recognize this is a rather unusual bill because it will not go before a standing committee of the House. It is the kind of proposition which should be studied by a standing or special committee of the House so that those most concerned in its details or application could make their voices heard. I have simply attempted to bring out some of the facets of the bill as it now stands. This measure will affect a very large percentage of the people whom I represent in this House, people who have no means of travel other than air, which is a very expensive mode of travel.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question of the minister in respect of this clause. The minister indicated certain carriers which will be exempt from the tax. Having listened to the hon. member for Churchill and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I am more convinced than ever that a large number of people in areas in which air transportation is the only means of transportation will bear the brunt of the tax burden. I am sure the officials of the department have made surveys. Would the minister indicate what surveys have been made in respect of the towns and communities in Canada which have only air services? I am thinking of places like Lac-la-Biche in Alberta, Wabush in Labrador, and Newfoundland which depend heavily on air transportation.
In Toronto, for example, a person very well might not find it necessary in his lifetime to spend five cents on air transportation, but any one who lives in Wabush has no alternative. If people in that area wish to move, they pretty well have to fly. I visited Lac-la-Biche, Alberta, a few months ago. If I am not mistaken, air travel is the only means of transportation to that growing community. We will assume that the bill did not grow out of a vacuum, and that the government has investigated the impact of this legislation and has ascertained who will pay the tax and in what amount. What surveys have been made of
Excise Tax Act
areas which have only air transportation, and how much in the form of generated revenue will these people pay per capita?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the studies which led to the proposal in the budget speech, and the studies which followed it when the bill was being prepared, were carried out in exactly the form suggested by my hon. friend. I can assure him and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that the bill was not drafted in a vacuum. I understand that prior to the bill being put in its final form for presentation to the House there was consultation with the Air Transport Association of Canada, which represents a very substantial number of carriers of various types in Canada.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There were consultations with major Canadian airlines such as Air Canada and CPA. There were consultations with the International Air Transport Association and also with officials of the Department of Transport who, I presume, would be reasonably well informed about matters connected with air transport in all parts of the country. So far as determining the impact of the tax is concerned, since it is a percentage tax, and ad valorem tax, it is easy in one way to determine it by applying the percentage to the cost of a ticket. Therefore, anyone can determine the impact on a person travelling from any particular point by applying the percentage. 1 do not think the studies with respect to the bill were developed on a per capita basis, at least those that I am aware of, but rather were along the lines I have outlined.
While my hon. friend and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni were speaking it occurred to me that in considering this situation there is some relevance in the situation now faced by those who travel by car. People who travel by car have to pay a tax on the gasoline they purchase. I could not compute it exactly while sitting here, but it would certainly be in excess of 5 per cent of the price they pay per gallon, and the farther they travel, the more gallons they buy and the more tax they pay.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but that is a road tax.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, but just a minute. Therefore, if Parliament accepts the proposal for this tax, people will be paying a tax on the amount they have to pay for the ticket they buy to travel by air, including those who cannot travel in any other way; but here they

November 26, 1969
Excise Tax Act
will be paying a lesser percentage than people who travel by car and who have to pay a certain percentage on each gallon of gas they use. I do not know if this example could be taken as a complete answer to the points raised by my hon. friend, but it appears that it might have some relevance in our study of the matter.
While I am on my feet I want to assure my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that while discussions at other points in time before this committee or other committees of the House itself may have dealt with airports in particular, I am informed that the intent in dealing with the proceeds of this tax to take into consideration not just airports but also the other operations of the Department of Transport as well in the air services field. And as I believe my hon. friend himself said, while people in his area might not get exactly the same benefit as people in other areas from expenditures by the federal government on the construction of airports, certainly benefit from the services of the department in the field of air services administration, control of civil aviation air traffic control, radio aids to air and marine navigation and meteorological services. So even though they may have to fly in float-planes which weigh over 18,000 pounds and they have to pay this tax, they will benefit from the services I have outlined and will benefit increasingly to the extent these services are expanded.
I am not unmindful of the suggestion the hon. member has made in an informative and constructive way, and I will bear it in mind in any consultation with the departmental officials. One should not look at this matter simply in isolation, in terms of airports and runways alone, but in terms of services to air transportation provided by the Department of Transport.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I raised the question of the automobile as a comparison to decide whether there is an equitable basis for the imposition of this tax. I think we are all agreed that there can never be complete equity in taxation, but it is our objective to try and arrive at a position as close to equity as possible.
As recorded at page 1242 of yesterday's Hansard, the minister said:
In the budget statement the Minister of Finance said that a further measure of budgetary significance arises out of a general policy to ask those who benefit directly from a service or facility provided by the government to pay charges more in line with the direct costs involved.

He went on to quote the words of the Minister of Finance as recorded at page 9420 of Hansard for last session, as follows:
It is well known that our expenditures on the construction, equipment, operation and maintenance of airports and other air transport facilities are now very large. In the last fiscal year they are estimated at $73 million. The revenue we obtain from user charges, rents, etc. of one kind and another related to airports and air transport facilities is far less-only about $41 million-
Obviously we can think of this proposed $21 million being used to try and close the gap. I suggested yesterday that there is a comparison here with people who use cars, but cars travel on highways. The highway is a facility which is provided by government, and the extent to which the driver of a car uses that facility is reflected in the amount of tax he pays. If he travels 1,000 miles, the amount he pays to one or more provincial governments will be in relation to his travel. But that is not the case with the tax now proposed by the government.
Consider the case of a man travelling between Peace River and Ottawa. His fare could well be in the order of $300, so he would be paying $15 tax and using three airports. A man who lives in Ottawa and makes 12 round trips over a short distance will use airports 24 times but will pay only the same tax, approximately. There is absolutely no equity in this situation.
Apparently the government is saying, "The ability of a person to pay a tax must be measured by the extent to which he can afford to buy an air ticket. If he can afford to pay $300 for a ticket, that is the measure by which we will calculate his tax-paying capacity and we will charge him $15." I may say that the figures which I am using are taken from memory. Short trip travellers will use airports a lot more than long trip travellers. In one case the airport is the facility provided, and in the other the road is the facility provided. But under these circumstances I do not think the same principle applies to both cases.
Yesterday the minister made what I think was his most valid point, at least from the point of view of a government, when he said there would be difficulty in collecting this tax. Maybe so, Mr. Chairman, but I have never found this government to have too much difficulty with its tax imposing capacity and its ability to collect taxes. If it has any trouble with poverty, it imposes a social development tax. If there is a problem with pollution, it will allow pollution or will impose a tax
November 26, 1989

under the guise of a fee and still allow pollution to continue.
The government produced a white paper to meet inflation dealing with all kinds of taxation. I wonder why the Minister of Finance, who is a real expert on this subject, could not get together with the Minister of Justice and instead of prescribing punitive measures, devise a tax for those who commit crimes or sins. I suggest that we are justified in calling these problems to the attention of the government. It is quite wrong to suggest there is any equity in the imposition of this tax. If the government wants to be quite frank it will say, "The cost of the ticket is a rough yardstick which we will use to measure the imposition of the tax."
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I repeat, as I did yesterday, that we are entering an era wherein the people of this country will increase tremendously their use of air transportation. This type of tax will then be unfair and inequitable and will not provide a reasonable yardstick. If the government really wishes to collect additional money for the provision of airport services, it should find other means of doing so.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question of the minister but perhaps he did not understand it. He has been around for a while, he has been the minister of this department for a while and is already becoming an expert in evasive tactics. I am sure he did not want to do this intentionally, but he can skate around things better than Barbara Ann Scott did.
In case he did not get my question the first time, I should like to ask him whether the government has carried out any surveys on who, in fact, will pay this tax. I am not slow enough to think that the answer is that the people who purchase airline tickets will pay. That is not what I am talking about. If there are 20 million people in Canada and $20 million is generated by the tax, we can assume, if the tax is evenly distributed, that the charge is $1 per capita. Who is going to pay this tax? I am afraid the burden will fall upon those who live in isolated areas such as the northern communities referred to by a number of my colleagues, and communities such as Wabush, Labrador, where there is no transportation except by rail, and that is likely to disappear any day now.
Excise Tax Act
Who is going to pay the tax? Is it the school kid in the summertime? Is it the resident in the isolated community who sometimes has to travel hundreds of miles for medical services? Is it the small businessman?
I know all these people will be affected. Has the government made any surveys to determine just who will pay the tax? This is a broad question and I intentionally leave it so in order to give the minister a chance to prove to us and the Canadian people that this legislation was not concocted by a few people in the Department of Finance who did not have sufficient knowledge. Unless he proves this I am afraid he will leave the wrong impression with a great many people.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I did not appear to provide an answer to my hon. friend's question in the form in which it was put, but the way he has rephrased it does not make it any easier to answer. He has asked a rather broad question, a general question which touches upon one of the most thorny issues in the whole matter of taxation, the question of incidence-upon whom does any tax ultimately fall?
There could be all sorts of arguments put forward about the burden of direct and indirect taxes, the distinctions between them and what the distinctions should be. We could devote a lot of time to discussing various philosophies of various economic experts, but I doubt very much whether it would be possible to develop studies which would provide, in any really meaningful way, information of the type my hon. friend is seeking.
Although it may not appear so at first glance, it would seem to me that the people who travel by air most frequently are not necessarily those living in the most isolated areas. Some people who live in the most urbanized, built-up areas travel a great deal in the way of business. Those of us who travel by air from Ottawa every week so often see the same businessmen, or at least the same faces, on the plane all the time. All sorts of people travel in connection with their employment. It is not safe to assume that people from isolated areas are always the most frequent travellers. I regret that I may not be in a position to respond to my hon. friend's question in terms he would like, but I believe this is because we are getting into the area of taxation philosophy more than anything else.
My hon. friend from Peace River mentioned that residents of that area may be in a worse position than someone who travels between

November 2S, 1969
Excise Tax Act
Toronto and Ottawa 20 times. He states that the person from Peace River would pay $300 for his ticket but it seems to me that the person who travels between Ottawa and Toronto 20 times would surely pay more; the person making such great numbers of short trips of this kind could pay at least $400. The percentage of tax in the total cost of his ticket would amount to more than that for the person from Peace River.
As my hon. friend says, equity is a very difficult problem when constructing any type of tax. After considering all the problems and difficulties, it will be found that the method we are proposing to the committee is the best and most appropriate one for dealing with them.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I am still not satisfied with the information the minister is giving me. He is telling me, and I am sure-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I was
extremely lenient, but the hon. member rose on a point of order and the procedure I had in mind was to recognize the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and then revert to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. However, I allowed him to put his question on what I thought was a point of order; at least, that is how it was put to me. Now I should like to return to the original pattern, recognize the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-who apparently is not satisfied with the answer he received, either-and then revert to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have often been dissatisfied with answers given me by ministers. However, I should like to pursue the question a little further with the minister before making any comment. I want to understand the picture clearly. The minister made several references to the fact that this tax would not apply in respect of the operation of certain classes of planes, provided their weight did not exceed 18,000 pounds. With regard to the proposed section 8 of Part II, in which the definition of a certified air carrier is set out, am I correct in assuming this means a certified air carrier will be required to collect a tax on all air fares, including all operations under class 3.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Am I also correct in assuming that where it makes reference to class 4 and groups AA and A under that class, it refers to

charter flights using planes of a weight greater than 18,000 pounds?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his answers, because they underscore the argument I advanced earlier about the way this tax would be applied. Clearly, those who receive the least service from the department will pay the most. If all class 3 aircraft services are to be taxable on the basis of the fare the user pays, it surely is obvious that many people who use no terminal facilities will be paying the tax. Granted, those people are getting some of the other services to which the minister referred. On the other hand, class 1 services, which I assume will carry the largest number of passengers in Canada because they are usually operated over longer distances and with larger aircraft, will have at their disposal the full range of the department's facilities. In other words, anyone using these services will be paying very much less per mile of air travel.
I will not comment on the argument advanced by the hon. member for Peace River about the number of times such people will use an air terminal in the course of a journey. I merely emphasize that those using class 3 services will make very little, if any, use of airport or terminal facilities. In some cases such people initiate a journey from a terminal and sometimes they end a journey at a terminal, but very seldom does their journey begin and end at a terminal.
The minister was trying to draw a parallel between the user tax in question and our gasoline tax which helps to pay for our roads and highways. I will not pursue that argument to an illogical conclusion. I am merely saying that in this particular situation-we are talking of air travel-it costs more to drive a Volkswagen or Datsun than it does to drive a Cadillac. I hope the minister appreciates my point. It is made to show the fallacy underlying his argument, because he argued that there is very little difference in principle between the gasoline tax and the tax being imposed by this bill.
His point was that, roughly speaking, within limits it costs so much a mile to drive a Ford and so much a mile to drive a Chev. But I am afraid that principle does not apply to people who travel by air. That is the point I am trying to make. In other words, the tax of 5 per cent on the fare will not provide
November 26. 1969

equality of cost per mile of air travel By trying to draw a parallel between the gasoline tax and the tax we are now considering, he underscored the argument I was making.
The minister told us that various bodies, organizations and firms were consulted in the drafting of this legislation. May I suggest, and this is not meant to be a criticism, that though airlines and airline organizations are probably concerned about the administrative difficulties of collecting and remitting this tax to the government, their attitude will be, "This is no skin off our nose. We shall simply add 5 per cent to the fare and send that amount to the government." The tax will not cost the airlines anything except that they may lose by being less competitive with other forms of transportation.
I emphasize again that this makes all the more evident the correctness of the arguments some of us have been advancing. This tax will rest most unfairly on those who have no alternate form of transportation, in other words, on those who are captives of the airline carriers and must fly or stay put. I therefore submit that the minister's arguments fall to the ground. If the minister insists on proceeding with this basic approach to taxation, I request him to reconsider the definition of the classes of air service which are to be included under the definition of certified air carrier, in order to eliminate some of the gross inequities of the proposed tax.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to pursue the matter a little further because I am sure the minister is not reading me properly or is affected by an instrument malfunction, so to speak. Perhaps I am not hearing him properly, or perhaps a combination of both factors is causing difficulty.
In so many words, the minister has been telling us that the government does not know who will pay the tax. I am generalizing, of course. We heard several statements about the incidence of taxation, where the greater burden of taxation would fall, and had a small lecture on the theories of taxation. Nevertheless, it still seems that the government does not know which Canadians will pay the tax we are discussing. I cannot accept this because I am sure the minister has available to him statistics showing whether people in airport towns, for instance, use airport facilities and fly more often than people who do not live in airport towns. He must have available to him statistics about the amount of flying done in this country, the percentage of that flying which is to be attributed to
Excise Tax Act
people living in small, isolated communities where air transport is the only mode of travel, the types of people who use aircraft and air travel facilities most frequently-whether they are small businessmen, students or others-and the percentage of the Canadian people utilizing our air services. I am sure these statistics are available. I am pursuing this matter because I would like the minister to answer my question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman-


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet asked my question. I want the minister to tell me-and I assume that this tax will increase regional disparities in Canada-what impact it will have on those who live in small, isolated communities that must rely on air travel. For example, at Churchill Falls, which will be one of the wonders of the world when it is completed, approximately 6,000 people working there can come to the site and leave it only by air. That is the only mode of travel. They go there from all parts of Quebec as well as from Newfoundland and other parts of the Maritimes. Being normal men who like to see their families, they fly back and forth several times a year. By the end of the year they have flown into and out of the Churchill Falls project at least five or six times and have spent $200 or $300 each time, depending upon whether they are travelling to Quebec, Newfoundland or the Maritimes. I emphasize that these 6,000 people live and work in an isolated community and they can get in and out of the work site only by air.
Surely the minister realizes that some communities rely upon air transport, and that this tax will add to their burden. I am afraid the people who live in isolated communities and must use air services will be paying a great bulk of the $20 million this tax is expected to generate. The government does not know who will pay the tax. How does it expect the 264 representatives of the people of Canada to vote for it? How can the government expect our support of this bill? My question is simple: Who is going to pay the tax?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has missed one point. As was pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, for people in communities such as Churchill Falls, Yellowknife, Inuvik and all the areas of the north the rate structure is much higher than it is for those in the southern part of

November 26, 1969
Excise Tax Act
Canada. The air mile rate for tickets is much higher. I know this because I have flown into the Northwest Territories. When flying an equal distance on the prairies, the rate is much lower.
The people in the north have no other means of transportation, so the government says, "Sock it to them". I know that phrase is loved by some people on the government side. I am speaking of the people in the frontier areas, which we are trying to develop and where there is no other means of transportation. I invite hon. members from central Canada, who may have just a nodding acquaintance with this subject, to place themselves in the same position in order to see what their reaction would be.
I suggest a far more equitable tax would be a flat rate departure tax, the mechanics of which could readily be worked out. We would then have a much wider base. The citizens of Inuvik, Fort Norman, Fort Simpson and Yellowknife pay a proportionately higher tax because the government insists it wants to use this administratively easy 5 per cent tax figure. It is on behalf of those people that we want to fight.
We are glad to see the minister has been able to explain that much of the flying activity in the north and our frontier lands will not be subject to this tax by reason of the type of aircraft in use, but the scheduled passenger services into these areas are definitely caught by the tax. The Pacific Western service which operates in the Mackenzie River valley to Rankin Inlet, north of Yellowknife, is an example of this. This argument also applies to airlines flying into Labrador and Churchill Falls. I cannot understand why the government is insisting upon loading onto these people an additional proportion of the tax burden. They have a tough enough time as it is. I invite hon. members from the government side to visit these areas to see just what they are like.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a few questions. Like the hon. member for Edmonton West, I am concerned about the situation regarding the Northwest Territories and what this tax will do to those people whose only contact with the outside world is the airlines. For instance, if we look at the fare from Edmonton to Inuvik we see that it is somewhat more than the fare from Edmonton to Ottawa, and yet there are other means of commuting between those last two cities. If you go into the north country, the only way you can travel is by air.

I know the minister has attempted on a number of occasions to answer this question, but I ask why he needs this additional revenue. Some years ago $32 million was spent in the city of Edmonton on an airport facility, yet on almost every occasion a foreign carrier applied for permission to use that facility, the Air Transport Commission placed obstacles in the way of their use of it. I do not know whether this was designed to protect Air Canada, but I do not think it is fair.
I think the proposed 5 per cent tax is both punitive and discriminatory. It is punitive in the sense it penalizes those people who have to rely completely on air services. I refer primarily to the people of the north. It is discriminatory of certain sections of the country, for instance western Canada where the entire business community must of necessity communicate with Toronto and Montreal where the manufacturing establishments and financial institutions are located. Travel to these points is a necessity; the air fare is high, and this tax will not help the businessman who was slapped recently with a 3 per cent surtax. The white paper indicates he is going to be whacked again. I ask the government when it is going to get off the tax spree we have been on since the last election.
I want to point out once again that most of the burden of this tax will penalize those people who in a year or two will be penalized under the taxation measures proposed in the white paper. I think the most equitable way of raising the revenue that the government seems to need is, as the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, by way of a departure tax of $1 or $2 a head on those travelling from the airport terminal.
A year or two ago the international airport in Edmonton imposed $1 a head charge for every passenger using that facility. Nobody complained about it. A great number of passengers use the air facilities across Canada, and they could provide sufficient revenue to meet the minister's requirements. Such a tax would be more equitable than the 5 per cent tax proposed by the government.
I wish to ask the minister one more question: Why is it that on top of the recent increase in Air Canada fares the government is going to impose an additional 5 per cent? The economy air fare from Edmonton to Ottawa used to be $96 and it is now $106. I feel the small businessman who must of necessity travel to eastern Canada is being penalized rather unfairly. Does the minister not agree?
November 26, 1969


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I wish to address to the minister and a few comments I would like to make. The minister indicated earlier there would be no charge in respect of certain types of aircraft weighing under 18,000 pounds. I did not quite catch his comments with regard to helicopters. I wonder if the minister could tell us when charges will be levied against those chartering helicopters, and whether the weight classification also covers this type of aircraft. Would the minister give us that information at this time?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I pointed out a little earlier in the discussion that excluded from the definition in proposed section 8 would be the type of air carrier that is in class 4 of the air regulations, but not in groups AA and A. These are carriers authorized to operate charter services in Canada by means of aircraft with a maximum authorized take-off weight of less than 18,000 pounds. I am informed that this would exclude from the definition of air carrier virtually all helicopters now in use. There are certain other classes of air carrier which I read into the record earlier, and I presume that in so far as helicopters may come within those classes, they would also be excluded.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Randolph Harding: I should like to thank the minister for that explanation. There are a few points I should like to raise in connection with the bill generally. Again, it would seem to me that the proposed tax has no truly equitable basis. It does not relate to distance travelled but directly to the rates which are charged. Other speakers have drawn attention to this point. I should like to do so, also, and to object to this unfair method which is particularly disadvantageous to people living in the northern areas, in the rural areas and to those travelling on the short runs.
Within the last month we have had an unhappy experience in my riding-a 30 per cent increase in the rates charged by local carriers. This increase was authorized by the air transport committee which felt, I presume, that the company had to be granted an increase in order to carry on. However, it has resulted in our rates being much higher than those charged by the national carriers. This is the point. Here we find a sharp increase affecting northern areas, and we find similar increases affecting the north generally, for a variety of reasons: there is a smaller population on which to draw, and it is much more 21545-11
Excise Tax Act
difficult to take passengers into these out-of-the-way places. The people affected by these higher rates are the ones we are hitting right between the eyes with this tax, and hon. members who represent them have every right in the world to protest it.
As the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has just asked: Who gets hurt most? It is the people in the outlying areas. Those who live in the cities where all the facilities exist, all the good facilities as far as airports are concerned, would pay the least tax under this proposal. Not only do those who live in urban areas have better facilities, but they have better means of communications generally as well as better landing fields, better means of guiding the aircraft to the landing fields, and so on. I suggest to the minister that he go back to the department and look for a better method of applying taxation to those who use air transportation, if he is in favour of a system of just taxation. After all, this is supposed to be a just government heading for a just society.
There are one or two other points I should like to make. First, will the minister tell us whether the department has computed the cost which would fall on the government's own resources if this tax were approved? Will cabinet ministers, government staff and public servants generally be excluded from payment, or will the tax be levied on their fares and charged to the treasury? If an inquiry on these lines has been made, would the minister tell us the estimated cost of the tax to the government itself? Is there to be any charge levied, for example, in connection with fares paid by personnel of the Armed Forces who use air facilities? These are questions which the minister should answer this afternoon.
Earlier today an hon. member made what I thought was a good pitch in favour of a monopoly as far as Air Canada is concerned. I thought he put forward a strong argument. We as taxpayers pay the entire cost of building airports and constructing facilities all over Canada.
I now turn to another question which has been raised this afternoon; I understand the minister intends to inquire into it. A whole host of private operators from one end of Canada to the other use the facilities at our airports. Where do they come into this tax picture? I submit that if we levy a charge on the poor Joe who has to ride on a plane, then, by golly, the others who use the transport facilities should also be charged. When does

November 26, 1969
Excise Tax Act
the government expect to look into this aspect of airport charges?
Again, in closing, I assert that this tax amounts to rank discrimination of those who live in the outlying areas and those who have to take small hops within a locality, one reason being that air fares in these regions are much higher in proportion than they are on the longer runs. I do not know how this tax can possibly be called a fair one. I would appreciate the minister's comments on the question I raised with regard to the cost which this tax would impose directly on the government.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, it seems this is another example of the government making up its mind first and then bringing legislation forward and expressing resentment, almost, at the fact that we should have any opinions on the matter at all. The minister should welcome suggestions from this side of the House. From the information we have been given so far, the picture is still far from clear. It is obvious that almost every speaker who has risen on this side of the House feels that the tax proposed is discriminatory. Surely there are alternative methods of raising the $20 million or so which this tax is expected to produce.
The last speaker suggested-and I must agree it is a valid suggestion-that we might tax the airlines themselves on the basis of a percentage of the business done. If the airlines want to pass the tax on to the customer in a certain way, perhaps by way of a general increase in fares,, perhaps on a per capita basis, I would say they know the air transport business better than any of us here can hope to do. Those who really use the airports are the people who run the airplanes, the people who own them. I think it would be a better plan to tax these direct users on the basis of a percentage of business done. It is obvious that if this course were followed the deep pocket would pay. On the other hand, the companies which would pay most would be those which were doing the most business. It might seem that under this proposal Air Canada would have to pay a lot of money. But Air Canada, as we know, is a Crown corporation and it would only be taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another.
There is a good case for competition, too, between airlines. As I said last night, the aviation industry in Canada is behind the times. Canada should be served by any airline that wishes to do so. Aviation has no place

for monopolies; what is required is healthy competition, which itself would benefit the airlines and enable us to raise the extra revenue required.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The middle income people of Canada are already carrying a crushing burden of taxation, and we are asking them to tighten their belts and buy Canada back. How in the world can we buy Canada back when practically every month the government brings in a new measure of taxation which is aimed at the hard-working, middle-class people of Canada? I do not like using the word "class" but it is thrown at us all the time. My hon. friends to the left are always talking of class warfare; and although those opposite do not talk about class warfare they practise it. At the present time this warfare is directed at the $6,000 to $12,000 wage earners of Canada who are being asked to shoulder an increasing taxation burden. I suggest we are killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
In one of the few explanations the minister has deigned to give us, he said that some of the aircraft used in the north will be below the weight limit that has been set. I think a fairer way to levy the tax would be to tax the fare-paying passengers, rather than set a weight limit for aircraft. Take the case of the aircraft that carries both freight and passengers. The weight of the freight might put the aircraft above the limit, and in addition the fare-paying passengers would be subject to the tax. As a result miners, prospectors or our native people would be discriminated against.
If a tax of this sort must be imposed, then the simplest way to levy it is to tax the airlines. As I have said, many airlines want to use Canadian airports, and I can refer the minister to hundreds of letters I have received in this regard. These airlines would use facilities at the airports which our taxpayers have already paid for, and taxing these airlines would distribute the tax burden a little more fairly. A tax that is based on mileage would impose a heavy impost on a family man moving from Halifax to Yellowknife. He would be required to pay five or six times as much tax as the businessman who goes north to make $1 million from oil exploration or something of that kind, and I do not think this is fair.
Neither do I think the minister's explanation that such a tax would be hard to compute is valid. The head of a family could buy all the tickets in his own name, pay the tax
November 26, 1969

on his own ticket and take his wife and children tax free. The same method could be used with students. It is ridiculous to allow a student to travel at the student rate from Halifax to take a law degree in Vancouver and then expect him to pay what I suggest is an exorbitant tax. Let us be consistent. People like students, old age pensioners and members of families could easily sign a form to exempt them from the tax when they pick up their tickets. At the end of the month the airline would merely have to calculate how many full fares and half fares they had collected, and pass on the tax to the government.
The minister should find these suggestions welcome. In any event I would ask him to let his colleagues know that we in this House are getting a little tired of the government bringing forward items of legislation for the consideration of the House, having already decided to accept no amendments. I am sure hon. members have noticed how few suggestions are made by government members.
If our proposals are not satisfactory, then we should be told why. If the government thinks students do not require special consideration, that old age pensioners do not require special consideration or that those in the north who are pioneering this country do not require special consideration, the government should explain its position. We on this side feel very strongly that these groups do require special consideration.
The mere excuse that something would be hard to police, or that the bureaucrats should not be expected to count noses, is no excuse at all. There are some 500,000 or 600,000 bureaucrats chasing each other around in circles in Canada; I suggest a few of them busy themselves trying to make sure the tax burden falls on the right shoulders. If that were the case, I would feel a great deal happier about the imposition of this tax.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, the minister is obviously batting on a very sticky wicket this afternoon. He has been asked a lot of questions and his answers have been somewhat vague. I cannot let this measure pass without raising objection to the imposition of this 5 per cent tax, since it will work its greatest hardship on people in areas that are already suffering from regional disparity.
As was quite well pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate, the burden imposed by this tax on workers at Churchill Balls or those in the remote areas of Canada will be exceptionally great. What the minister has not yet told us is 21545-111
Excise Tax Act
how much money he hopes to raise by this measure, or how much money the government really needs. For example, I read in the November 24 issue of the Financial Times a statement to the effect that heavy expenses face our airport planners today; that initial cost estimates for the new St. Scholastique airport outside Montreal run to about $400 million; that Toronto's new airport can be expected to cost about the same and that there are varying estimates for creating new ground facilities in other major centres.
If this tax is to be applied against the cost of the Montreal and Toronto airports, then I fail to see the logic of imposing additional taxation on those who live in the remote areas of Canada to pay for the construction of new and expanded facilities in what is really the golden horseshoe of Canada. In my own native province of Nova Scotia the people have been literally trying to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Since 1956, through the efforts of Industrial Estates, we have been able to encourage 60 or more new industries to locate in Nova Scotia.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
These new industries must of necessity travel to the central areas of Canada in order to obtain the business needed to keep them growing and expanding. What the minister and the government are doing by imposing this tax on these industries is increasing their cost of doing business. I must raise objection to this measure because I think it is unfair and, to use a term that is much overworked, very unjust.
This measure will obviously place a heavier tax burden on industry than we have yet seen this session. I wonder what plans the minister has in respect of the air industry of Canada. Does he intend to expand airports in some of our remote areas, or is the money to be raised by this new imposition to be utilized only in Montreal and Toronto?
Will similar charges be made in respect of light, private club aircraft? We on this side can only look with trepidation at the attitude of this Government which, having taxed us to the limit to provide airport facilities, is now going to increase our taxes in order that Canadians may utilize the facilities. I believe that the government should withdraw this 5 per cent measure and consider making a flat charge on everyone across Canada who is using air services. This would seem to be a fairer means of distributing thq cost of airport expansion. In the minister's reply I hope

November 26, 1969
Excise Tax Act
he will give favourable consideration to this suggestion.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I should like very briefly to pose a question to the minister. Earlier in the day he suggested that this tax covers a whole range of services. We can appreciate that if it is the intent of the bill. I should like to ask him to inform the committee whether his department has had any consultation with other departments in so far as the correlation of rates for air services is concerned.
Yesterday we had the opportunity of hearing representatives of certain airlines who appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. They admitted that the rates on short runs were some 40 per cent more than the rates for the same services on other legs of scheduled runs. I suggest that the people who must use these scheduled runs have from this government no protection as users or consumers of the service.
It was my impression that when rate schedules were published and filed with the Canadian Transport Commission and the air transport committee their members looked at the rates and considered whether they were justifiable and in line with general marketing practices in Canada. Instead I find that there is absolutely no consideration by the Air Transport Committee in so far as rate schedules are concerned. All an airline has to do is publish its rates and they are then filed with the Air Transport Committee; no consideration is then given as to whether the airline is charging an exorbitant amount on a particular leg of a flight.
The minister should let this House know whether his department in presenting this user tax has considered it in consultation with other bodies, particularly the Department of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission. This government should become the protector of the consumer by limiting the rate schedules that can be charged by respective airlines.
We have heard a great deal about supply and demand. This point was brought out yesterday at the hearing of the committee; it was suggested that there is no such thing as control on price unless an individual complains, when possibly an investigation would be held. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador made it very clear that the rates being charged in their area of the country are

not in line with those charged in other areas. If this government is concerned about consumer cost it should inform the House whether it is prepared to protect the users of airlines.
The government should be directly concerned with the 5 per cent charge embodied in this bill, and it should indicate whether during the drafting of it other government departments were consulted. It appears to me that one department of the government has no knowledge of or much concern for the operations of another department. Before introducing this bill the minister should have considered the cost to the consumer of the original air schedule in various parts of the country. This increase of 5 per cent imposed on people already paying higher rates will have a considerably greater effect than it will have on those now paying lower rates.
The minister stated previously that private planes were not included within the scope of the bill. It is amazing to me that when dealing with the bill the minister did not indicate whether private planes landing and using services at public airports would have to pay the additional charge. Surely if the consumers or users of this service will now have to pay an extra 5 per cent, those with private planes using the whole range of services to which the minister referred should expect an increase in the cost of these services. The minister passed this off by saying that someone else will look after it. Does he not have an obligation to include in the bill people who have private planes and use these public services? It seems to me you cannot talk about one and not the other. Perhaps the minister will indicate whether he has been in contact with other departments about this bill or whether he alone initiated its drafting and introduction.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask one question. The minister is undoubtedly aware of the fact that most of the major airlines in the United States have commenced a feasibility study in respect of terminals for giant freighters. He must also be aware that much of the damage to runways across Canada is caused by these types of aircraft. I assume he requires this additional revenue to look after this extra cost to some extent.
Is it fair to penalize the passenger because of an additional requirement for revenue to be used for this type of maintenance? I do not want to create the impression that I feel air freight rates should again be increased, but I
November 26, 1969

am wondering whether he is prepared to consider the damage that giant freighters will cause in the next few years.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Moose Jaw asked whether there had been consultation with other departments. I am informed that there was certainly close consultation with the Department of Transport involving the measure before us at the present time. Several hon. members have asked what private planes are paying and will pay for use of facilities for which we are asking people who buy tickets on certified air carriers to pay. At the present time private planes which use these facilities pay special fees; they pay landing fees and other user charges. In opening the debate on second reading I believe I pointed out that this measure arises out of the proposals in the budget statement of June 3 and is linked with a statement of principle enunciated by the Minister of Finance as recorded at page 9420 of Hansard for Tuesday, June 3, and I quote:
A further measure of budgetary significance arises out of a general policy to ask those who benefit directly from services or facilities provided by the government to pay charges more in line with the direct costs involved. We already obtain about $200 million per annum from such user charges of various kinds-
In some cases these charges have not been recently revised to reflect current levels of costs or values of services, and we are carrying out a systematic review and revision of these charges. We shall probably introduce some new charges as well. In almost all cases this action can be taken under existing legislation.
So it is my understanding that the user charges and fees presently paid by various types of private aircraft which use the various facilities provided by the Department of Transport for air transportation are under review. The purpose of the review is to help ensure that each category of aircraft pays its fair share by way of contribution to the cost of maintaining and expanding these various facilities.
A number of hon. members have made comments which really amount to complaints about the rates being charged by various schedule and non-schedule carriers for transporting people around this country. It seems to me that in passing the National Transportation Act, Parliament decided to delegate to the Canadian Transport Commission authority in respect of regulatory activity in the field of rates for air travel. It is my understanding, although I do not claim to be an expert by
Excise Tax Act
any means in these matters, that while airlines must file their rates with the Air Transport Committee of the Air Transport Commission it is also open to those who are not satisfied with these rates to file a complaint.
The result of this would be that the committee would carry out an investigation and if it finds that the provisions of the law in respect of rates are not being followed, then it has authority to suspend the application of these rates. So it would seem to me that those who feel there are grounds for complaint about rates in one area of the country or another should see that any complaint about rate schedules is filed with the Air Transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission.
Various hon. members have asked about the yield on the tax. The budget statement indicated that the yield was expected to be approximately $20 million. I believe the hon. member for South Shore asked where the money would be spent. It is my understanding it will be taken into account in determining the expenditures of the Department of Transport for the full range of services it provides in the air transport field and not simply in respect of the construction of airports in one or two metropolitan areas of the country.
While, as the hon. member for South Shore said, people travelling from the maritime provinces will pay the proposed tax, once they get to the central part of Canada, they will not only be using the present services of the Department of Transport with regard to air transportation but they will be using the particular airports there. People travelling from the central part of the country to the maritime provinces and other areas to do business of various types will also have to pay the tax. So this proposed tax would not be limited to one particular area of the country or to certain areas of the country alone.
One hon. member proposed that a better way would be to have the tax paid by the airlines themselves. As other hon. members have mentioned, it is likely that this would be passed on to the purchaser of the ticket in one way or another. Some members have already complained that the rates charged for air travel are too high. I think a number of points have been made which have been dealt with in one way or another in my earlier comments. Perhaps I might conclude at this stage by saying to those who argue in favour of a flat rate that this might perhaps inadvertently be in conflict with the argument of hon. members such as the hon. member for

November 26. 1969
Excise Tax Act
Gander-Twillingate who speaks of people who have to use airports frequently. The more frequently people use airports, the more often they would pay the flat rate.
One hon. member suggested that a departure tax of $1 on each occasion would be sufficient. When one looks at the total number of passengers carried, which is something, if I can recall correctly, in the area of 10 million per year, it becomes evident that the tax would have to be much higher in order to yield the approximately $20 million a year.
Let me assume hon. members that in this type of discussion it is my intent to listen as carefully as 1 can to the points they raise and attempt to respond in a constructive way. Certainly, however, as the hon. member for Peace River has said, in formulating any type of tax there are problems of equity and no matter what type is considered there are problems associated with it. It is a question of having, to decide on a form which would appear on balance to have the smallest number of problems associated with it and which would be the least inequitable, and in fact most equitable in comparison with other possible measures.
If one is to accept the principle supported by the hon. member for Edmonton West that users of facilities have a special obligation to contribute toward the cost, maintenance and expansion of these facilities, then I submit that on balance the proposals in this bill are those which deserve the support of this committee and the House.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a question which he has not answered. I asked whether his department had computed the tax the government would have to pay in respect of this air tax. I have not heard an answer. I imagine that this tax must have been computed, because there are budgetary restrictions in respect of all departments and surely any government which wishes to do a good job with its budget would take this into consideration. I would ask the minister to reply to my question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I regret that in attempting to summarize and put together a response to a [DOT]vast range of very interesting comments I did not deal with my hon. friend's point. I understand it is not generally customary when developing proposals of this sort to make the computation or analysis my hon. friend suggested. After all, the same kind of point could be raised when one looks at the impact of the changes in the sales tax in relation to purchases by the government.

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)	f -	'
This is a form of consumption tax which is analagous to the sales tax. It would seem to me the point the hon. member has in mind does not have the weight it would otherwise have if I am correct in saying that the total number of civil servants who travel is very small, or relatively small in relation to the total number of people carried by air in any particular year.


Mr. Nyslrom:: I believe the minister said that the user fees, charges, or whatever you want to call them with respect to private aircraft and people who travel in them are now under review by the government. When does he expect that this review will be completed, and does he expect legislation to be introduced on the matter? Further, when was the last review made of this particular matter? I ask these questions because the users of private airplanes also benefit from the services and facilities of public airports.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I understand this review is being carried out in a very intensive and active manner at the present time. While I cannot give the hon. member the exact date, I would expect it would not be too long before the results of the review are announced. It is my understanding that in order to raise the user fees it would not be necessary in most cases, if not in all cases, to have a change in legislation. It is something that can be done by changes in regulations on the basis of authority already given by Parliament.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, my colleague from South Shore has raised this matter, and the minister has reflected on it but has not given us any conclusive evidence. I know he has talked to his advisers. Can he now indicate the flow of traffic in Canada in terms of air travellers? Is the main flow from the rural areas, which I might classify as the Atlantic region and the northern areas of Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Perhaps our discussion illustrates the need for a different way of computing statistics with respect to travel by air and the use of air facilities. Perhaps we should bring this to the attention of DBS. I understand statistics are presently collected on the basis of arrivals at and departures from airports. I do not have these exact statistics with me. It may not be particularly useful to look at these figures for the purpose we are pursuing at this point, because they do not show whether a person leaving a particular airport
November 26, 1969

lives in an area near it or if he lives in a community near the airport at which he is going to arrive. While the statistics available are useful for certain purposes, I do not think they have been put together in such a way that I can easily answer the type of question asked by the hon. member. I say this not to disparage the question but merely to point out that there may be room for developing statistics in this particular field.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps I am being a bit unfair to the minister to expect him to have at his fingertips the kind of information I have been seeking all afternoon. I would like to say that he has done a commendable job. However, I would ask him to consider my question again with respect to the people who will actually be paying the proposed tax, especially those travelling from rural areas, and communities of a type such as Churchill Falls and Wabush, and can he say what type of passengers they are? This question also covers people from isolated areas in the other northern regions of the country. Would he have some of the experts in his department review these questions and report to members through a circular, detailing the type of persons who will be paying the main burden of the tax? Can he give us this undertaking?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would be very happy to consult with the officials to see to what extent the statistics presently available, or which can be readily gathered, could be used to give the type of analysis which the hon. member is seeking. It would be a most interesting type of analysis and possibly could be useful in many ways. Once I have completed this consultation I will communicate with the hon. member and tell him what I have been able to ascertain. I thank him for his comments. I find it a bit flattering to have him think I might be able to deal with such a profound matter at such short notice, but I will certainly do the best I can under the circumstances.


Randolph Harding: Is the minimum amount that can be charged for an adult $2 on any flight?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The proposals actually involve two different types of tax under the same general heading. Most of our discussion this afternoon has been related to the ad valorem or percentage tax on travel to points in the taxation area defined in the bill. This is roughly within continental North America. There will be another tax which will be on a flat rate basis, on tickets for travel outside
Excise Tax Act
the taxation area, that is to say, travel to points outside continental North America.
Initially it Is proposed the tax would be in the amount of $5 per ticket, but the Governor in Council would be given the authority to reduce the tax below that amount if the United States Congress passes a bill of the kind which is presently before it, which would give the United States government the authority to impose a similar tax on international flights. By giving the Governor in Council this authority we would make sure we would not be imposing a tax that would be much different from that of the United States, because if the tax in the United States were very much lower it might have the effect of encouraging Canadians to go to that country and begin their travels abroad from there rather than using Canadian carriers.


Randolph Harding: In my area we have several very short hops. One is from Castlegar to Cranbrook. The fare used to be $10. Then the Air Transport Committee increased the fare by 30 per cent. A 5 per cent tax on this fare would be 65 cents. Does the minister mean to say we have to pay a $2 tax for that short jump?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. The tax on tickets for transportation within Canada, or from Canada to the United States and back again, would be a percentage of the price of the ticket, and if 5 per cent would come to 65 cents that is what the tax would be. The minimum amount would apply only with respect to flights from Canada to points outside continental North America.


The Deputy Chairman:: Does that conclude the study of paragraph 8?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of clause 1 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall paragraph 10 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us have the yeas and nays.


Mr. Bell:: What do you think we have been waiting for?


Albert Béchard: Order. I understand the paragraphs are not carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, they are. That is the understanding.

November 26, 1969
Excise Tax Act


Albert Béchard: The understanding was that we would carry clause 1 at the end ol the study of its various parts.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. The understanding was that we would carry each part, and that we would carry them as we go. This was the clear understanding.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we
should have taken a moment to raise this matter again when Your Honour were called upon to occupy the chair. My hon. friend is quite correct; this is something we had agreed on at the opening of our discussion.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Paragraph 10 of Clause 1 agreed to: Yeas, 54; nays, 52.
Paragraphs 11 to 17, inclusive, of Clause 1 agreed to.
On paragraph 18-Regulations


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have one question on paragraph 18, Mr. Chairman. It gives power to the Governor in Council to pass regulations. Would the minister kindly inform us, in respect of subparagraph (c), what is the intention or the purpose of the power of exemption of any group or type of transportation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this provision is necessary because of the complications inherent in describing who shall be liable for collecting the proposed tax, and to avoid problems of possible double taxation, and so on, because of the existence of similar taxes in the United States on flights going between the two countries. It is generally considered advisable to have this power to deal with enforcement complications, which may arise in the application of a new and previously unknown tax. I think that is about the best way of summarizing some of the purposes of the proposed new section.
Paragraph 18 of clause 1 agreed to.
Paragraph 19 of clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for speaking for some time at this stage of the bill. This is a tax bill carried forward from the last June budget. The participation of hon. members on all sides has demonstrated the opposition of this tax. There have been many arguments advanced for it, but with the greatest respect to the Minister without Portolio (Mr. Gray), we still do not accept his argument that an ad valorem tax is a just type of tax for this particular purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is the crux of the matter. In the discussion on paragraph 8 of clause I the minister tried to alleviate some of the concern expressed for those in remote areas and some of the smaller services, but he has not in any way contributed to the justice of the government's position with regard to people in isolated areas. As far as the government is concerned, one would think that air travel applied only to central Canada and the cities on the southern plains. But air service is important to people in the developing communities of this country, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, Labrador, northern Quebec and northern Ontario, where the sole source of effective transportation is by air. We all know that the rate per air mile is higher for these people than those in the southern parts of the country and central Canada. The application of an ad valorem tax merely increases the burden on these people.
[DOT] (5.50 p.m.)
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Yellowknife and communities down the Mackenzie River and on the Arctic coast are not serviced by small aircraft which are exempt under clause I, paragraph 8(a) of the bill. These people use regular services. For instance, Quebecair goes all the way to Churchill Falls and Pacific Western Airlines goes down the Mackenzie River and out to the Arctic coast. Jet aircraft are used. All these services are being caught by this provision.
I am not saying they should be totally exempted, although some of them might argue they should be because of the increased cost of living in remote areas. Let me assure hon. members that the cost of living in those areas is fantastically higher than it is here because of the enormous cost of moving goods into remote settlements. Yet here, from our comfortable pew of southern Canada, we are telling these people, "We are going to add
November 26, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	1295
Excise Tax Act
another cost; you will have to pay a 5 per cent tax on your air passenger tickets."
The minister tried to use all sorts of arguments against a flat rate departure tax. I tell him, Mr. Speaker, that a flat rate departure tax exists in this country and is levied in connection with the only air bus system operating in this country, that is between Edmonton and Calgary. At the municipally-owned airport in Edmonton the Department of Transport charges the city airport authority for all the services it provides to the airport in so far as take-off and landing guidance systems, and what have you, are concerned. There a flat rate of $1 is charged and people are quite happy to pay it.
Those using that airport do not have to pay for parking because the municipal airport authority allows free parking. On the other hand, if you go to the international airport in order to fly to Calgary, you must pay $1.10 to park your car. If you go to municipal airports, you park your car free but you pay a departure tax. Now the minister says he will tax us again for those services for which the Department of Transport has already billed the municipal authority.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That shows where this type of tax is wrong, and that is why I insist that a departure tax is better. A flat rate tax is better. It might lead to some slight inconvenience with the big, jumbo jets, but does anyone think that jumbo jets will land at every interior airport of Canada? Of course they will not. They will land at Montreal, Toronto and perhaps Vancouver. They
will not land at the internal airports of this country, be they designated "international" or not. At least, no great number of such landings will take place. This is just putting up an Aunt Sally in an attempt to knock it down. I suggest it will be quite simple to levy a flat, departure tax. It should be levied per flight and not merely when an aircraft lands at any stage during a flight. It would be better than the present proposal because we would get round the inequities of this type of tax.
I indicated in my remarks on the first clause that people who fly in executive jet aircraft or in company personnel aircraft and use the services will not be paying for air transportation facilities. Is the minister to increase the charges for the landing of these aircraft? Will there not be difficulty in distinguishing between different types of these aircraft, because an aircraft which may have a carrying capacity of 20 passengers may be carrying only three? An aircraft's load-bearing capacity should be based on the travelling public, but the government insists on this ad valorem tax. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) that-
All the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefore:
Bill C-155 be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Committee of the whole with instructions that clause (i), paragraph numbered 10 be reconsidered to provide an air transportation tax on a flat fee basis to be determined by the committee as providing an equivalent return to and in lieu of the tax therein provided.
May I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.




*



- ..



Thursday, November 27, 1969