1974-12-11

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 23 - 24 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the
authority ot the Speaker of the House oi Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
28626-IV2
Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 11, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions.


Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In accordance with Standing Order 67 which says that a petition may be read if required, and citing citation 343 of Beauchesne's which says that a member clearly has the right to ask that a petition be read-and this privilege, like many others, is subject to the approval of the House-I would ask that you now request the House to give unanimous approval to the reading of this petition which is quite short.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may be correct, in that the petition is quite short; however, I am not aware whether other hon. members have had the opportunity to examine its contents. The hon. member is correct when he suggests he has the right to ask that a petition be read. This is an unusual procedure; however, it is supported by precedent in that an hon. member presenting a petition does have the right to ask that it be read, whereupon the House may give its consent. In any event, there are other conditions precedent to that which surround the presentation of a petition, not the least of which concerns the language of the petition and any reflection it might have upon a decision taken either by this House, the government or by other bodies.
Personally, I have grave concern, after examining the contents of this petition, whether or not it conforms with all those conditions. Under the circumstances, I would propose to defer any decision on the hon. member's request until tomorrow at this time, in order to give hon. members an opportunity to comment or to contribute in respect of the suggestion that the petition be read, not simply because of this petition in particular but because I think the House ought to direct itself to the question of whether or not comments or commentary ought to be introduced in this chamber in this way with respect to decisions and positions which have been taken by the Canadian government.
The idea of petitioning the House of Commons to take certain action is, of course, standard practice. However, to
include in the petition comments or reflections upon positions and decisions already taken by the government is a bit of a departure. Therefore, before we begin such process or encourage it in any way, I would invite hon. members to make a contribution on the question of whether or not the Chair should have a disposition to ask for the consent of members. Therefore, I would propose to take note of the hon. member's request and make a decision on it at this time tomorrow.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege relating to statements made yesterday by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), on the allotted day, with reference to conflict of interest.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue made statements that suggest that every member is at fault, that his personal interests come first before those of his riding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the text of two extracts of the hon. member's speech to justify my question of privilege. Among other things, he said:
In my opinion, not many members would vote if we made a careful scrutiny of the interests of all members of parliament because every one of them tries to find some benefits outside the House.
And a little further, he said, and I quote:
... and political party organizers do so ...
He did not say who.
Under the circumstances, and since these general allegations have been made in a way that cast reflection on all those, near or far, who are connected with politics, I would urge the Chair to ask the hon. member for Temiscamingue to clarify his statement, and even to make some charges, if need be, instead of suggesting and leading the public to believe that politics is a dirty trade, which would be most unfortunate.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other members who wish to make a contribution in respect of the question of privilege, I would have to note that this question of privilege is not followed by a motion which would require action by the Chair but is basically in the form of a request that the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) clarify and specify the members to whom he might have been referring in the remarks complained of. Under the circumstances, that request remains on the record and may be clarified at some other time if the hon. member is so

December 11, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
disposed. However, it being a request that a general comment about the conduct of some members be clarified and specified, I have to hold that it falls outside the ordinary definition of a question of privilege. In any event, since it is not followed by a specific motion which requires action by the Chair, I would have to rule that there is nothing further the Chair can do about the matter at this time.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Despite the Trudeau government's avowed determination to exercise moderation in government spending in order to avoid generating inflationary pressures, and despite requests that Canadians practice voluntary restraint in consumer spending also to avoid generating inflationary pressures, in August, 1974, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) authorized the purchase and has recently taken possession of a new limousine with a purchase price of $83,530.44.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's $75,000 limousine is almost new, and in view of the fact that CPI figures released today show that inflationary pressures are not abating, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the House requests the Prime Minister to take immediate action to sell one of these two luxurious limousines in an effort to demonstrate to the people of Canada that curbing inflation is a critical and sincere priority of the present government.


Mr. Trudeau:: Sell the two if you want.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that in the remarks of the hon. member it is not altogether clear- as a matter of fact, it is not clear at all-what the grounds are upon which he seeks the attention of the House to this important matter. The hon. member said he was rising on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity. However, although that language in contained in Standing Orders 43 and 26, his remarks do not relate to either of them. Although there may be some suggestion of privilege, the hon. member's remarks do not relate to a question of privilege. Under the circumstances, I do not think that the Chair can take any action.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which concerns the most important and fundamental privilege of this House. I refer to the exclusive right of this House to grant supply. Last night that privilege was trampled upon by the government through actions of the government House leader and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).

In speaking to this motion I would point out that I rose on a similar question of privilege concerning the time-span that we had to consider the supplementary estimates in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. At that time I suggested we had unreasonable time in which to consider the expenditure of $1.75 billion. Last evening, without notice given to the leader of this party, clause 5 was inserted in appropriation Bill C-42 which gave the government power to raise a further $2.5 billion in loans.
I would point out that only last March the government secured the power to increase its indebtedness by $3 billion. In short, coupling the two powers, the government has caused this parliament to increase the borrowing limit by $5.5 billion since last March. I point this out because I think it was indeed unfortunate last night that the matter was included in Bill C-42 without notice as, I believe, when we reached committee of the whole stage there was great confusion regarding the actual rights of each member of the House to question clause 5 which had been included. I mention that there was one request for an explanation from a member of our caucus; other members in the opposition questioned the matter, and there was a vote. But during committee of the whole stage the Chairman of the committee made it clear that there could be no debate. I suggest that the agreement that there be no debate was made on the understanding that Bill C-42 would include only items in Supplementary Estimates (B). But in fact it included this extra clause 5.
If I may, I would like to outline my reasons for thinking that what transpired last night must fall. I say this because I believe it is wrong for parliament to submit to this type of procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will give reasons for my position. Under section 54 of the British North America Act, the order of this House last night, that Bill C-42, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975, be read the third time and do pass, is illegal. Section 54 of the British North America Act provides;
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.
Standing Order 62(1) is to the same effect. Bill C-42 purports to be based upon Supplementary Estimates (B). Votes and Proceedings of November 22, 1974, at page 141, has the following entry:
Mr. Chretien, a member of the Queen's Privy Council, delivered a message from His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada, which was read by Mr. Speaker, as follows:


BORA LASKIN
[Stage Direction]
His Excellency the Administrator transmits to the House of Commons Supplementary Estimates (B) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending on the 31st March, 1975, and, in accordance with the provisions of "The British North America Act, 1867" recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
December 11, 1974
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, Supplementary Estimates (B) do not contain-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question of privilege. I do not want to interrupt him before he has finished, although I have some reservations which I may express later. I would only ask that in concluding his remarks, the hon. member should refrain from quoting, as he has done up to now, references from the statutes or from the existing record. For these purposes it is sufficient, surely, to refer to the existing law rather than to read it to the House at this time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have reference to clause 5 of Bill C-42 which was passed yesterday evening. I should also like to consider sections 45 and 46 of the Financial Administration Act. I would suggest that it follows that the authority to borrow as set out in clause 5 is an authority to appropriate money from the consolidated revenue fund to the amount of the repayment of capital and payment of interest as well as loan expenses. The authority in the Governor General's message of November 22, 1974, does not cover such appropriation. In order to cover the appropriation in clause 5, there should have been an additional message from His Excellency and unanimous consent of the House to dispense with notice.
Standing Order 75(6) requires 24 hours' notice before proceeding upon the Governor General's recommendation in relation to any amendment. I suggest the bill should have been introduced without clause 5, a recommendation should have been tabled at the report stage, and unanimous consent obtained to waive notice. This was not done, Mr. Speaker. Vote and Proceedings for last night has an entry on page 184 that I would refer you to. I would also refer Your Honour to Standing Order 58(19).
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that in so far as clause 5 is concerned, it is not based on Supplementary Estimates (B). Bill C-42 and the proceedings in this House on that bill are in violation of the Standing Order; and the bill itself is unlawful, as I have said, under section 54 of the British North America Act. I should also point out that rule 62 of the other place includes a provision similar to those to which I have referred.
Mr. Speaker, if you agree that my question of privilege is well founded, I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections to recommend a remedy with respect to the proceedings on Bill C-42.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this was a most unusual proceeding. It was one that some of us were not aware of at the time the bill was introduced. I say, however, that a question was raised on a point of order, an explanation given and a vote taken. There was some opposition. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I am not defending the procedure that was followed. I hope we can avoid this sort of thing in future.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: No debate was allowed at that time.
Privilege-Mr. Stevens


Mr. Speaker:: Do other hon. members wish to make a contribution on this interesting question of privilege?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, last night during the committee stage I raised a question as a point of order because there was considerable uneasiness on this side of the House about the procedure being followed. If you will recall, the bill was distributed while the Chairman was moving to his seat, and this House was totally unaware of the provision previously referred to. Naturally, uneasiness was felt about the inclusion of the item in question. As a result of the strictures imposed on debate, of which the Chairman reminded us on a couple of occasions, there was no way of debating this matter and a point of order was raised rather than one of privilege.
I recommend that Your Honour look carefully into the references submitted by my colleague the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on this matter and, contrary to the wording of the motion, that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization rather than to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In any event, all of this has been a singular departure. The apologia put forward by the government House leader to the effect that "I am sorry, chaps, but we were not aware of this either," does not in any way excuse the fact that the hon. gentleman moved the motion himself.
I suggest that Your Honour should review this matter and, if you conclude that this was an improper procedure, we should be told that it was improper and the government should be cautioned against repeating a similar thing in future. Perhaps I could also make this point: the government should move to refer to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization matters to do with the procedures of this House, the resolution of which has been awaited for a long time.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this point of order. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and myself have protested yesterday when clause 5 of Bill C-42 was being discussed in committee of the whole.
I was interested in what the President of the Privy Council said since he has made it possible to revise such a ridiculous procedure. Every time we reach the final day allotted for supplies they put before us such a procedure or they regularly force upon us some legislation never seen or known before by any hon. member, which bears no number and for which no debate or amendment is allowed at that stage and upon which there is no other choice than to vote. And when we are asked to pass the bill hon. members from both sides of the House protest. Mr. Speaker, this is why I think that the comments of the President of the Privy Council should be taken into account because it is extremely important that such procedure be considered by the Committee on Procedure and Organization.
In any event, there has been a precedent in this House in the past, this situation occurring every year. The Chair then referred the whole matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure for study with a view to reforming the procedure.

December 11, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to see that we have just lost a whole day after having authorized the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to borrow $2.5 billion, without providing for the possibility of a debate or amendments. To my mind, we have now reached the height of the ridiculous: yesterday we were kept, by standard procedure from discussing this matter, at the risk of raising a general outcry in the House, and today we lose about 15 minutes over a matter of procedure that was brought up in the past; yet the same hon. members who protest today ganged up yesterday with the Liberals to pass clause 5 and give the Minister of Finance borrowing powers to the extent of $2.5 billion.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other members who wish to contribute to the point, I might say that the hon. member has raised, as he did on the previous occasion to which he referred in his remarks, a very important question about the procedures of the House relating not only to the examination of the estimates leading to the decision of the House upon supply of money for the government, which we dealt with earlier, the whole process of which was forced into rather extraordinary circumstances because of an election which fell at the time it did during this year. I think the House is well aware that the opposition took surely what must be regarded as a very responsible position in cooperating in compressing the time to examine the estimates and the whole of the supply process in order to see to it that the affairs of the country might go on financed by parliament with its approval, as it ought to be.
The result of that, however, was to so compress the supply procedure and the examination of the estimates that it has been the cause of concern and complaint on a number of fronts. I have sufficient sympathy for the argument put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), supported by others, that I would be tempted to reserve the decision and take careful consideration of the matters that have been put forward this afternoon. However, I would be deceptive if I did that because it would create the impression that there were not ingredients in the process which lead me to an immediate conclusion. By that I mean there are two elements involved here that take it out of the possibility even of reserving it, the first being that surely the well-established rule that the time for raising a question of privilege is at the first occasion upon which the grievance arises in the House of Commons.
Surely, the first opportunity during which this grievance in respect to Clause 5 and its contents arose was during the time last evening when the House considered it. Unless the House be tempted to the view that was not in the minds of members, there is of course the question that was put by the very distinguished and experienced member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) about that particular point which surely, if for no other reason, would have attracted the attention of hon. members. Therefore, the Chair must assume at that moment the attention of the House was directed toward the difficulties with Clause 5.
Furthermore, bearing in mind that the difficulty was raised last night and thereafter the House proceeded to the

consideration of the clause, although under strictures according to the rules, and ultimately approved it in accordance with the rules of the House by a vote that took place. I would have to consider that both of those ingredients would establish beyond any question that the procedures which took place last evening, although perhaps the subject for a complaint and a grievance by members of the House, were in accordance with the rules and were finalized in accordance with the long established rules of the House. It would be most improper for me to create the impression at that time that any proceedings which could be taken today could in any way cause the House to reflect on a decision it took properly and in accordance with the rules last night.
I therefore say again to the members of the House that, while I have some sympathy, and surely it must be the only reasonable interpretation of the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) that there is sympathy for the complaint put forward, it does not establish itself within the rules as a question of privilege at this moment. I would only add that the comments of the President of the Privy Council must be taken if not as a clear undertaking, at least as very close to an undertaking tantamount to the previous one that the hon. President of the Privy Council was good enough to give to the chamber, that is that the supply procedures would be examined by the procedure committee and furthermore the procedures contained in the actual supply bill, being as it is under a very severe guillotine with regard to amendment and debate, would also be taken under consideration by that committee and certainly that is something for which we would hope.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this very interesting point. Your Honour's decision, of course, is not the subject of my point of order. In light of what the government House leader said, and in view of the fact the matter is now before the other place, will the government House leader undertake to get in touch with the other place and give them his views on the matter so that they, having greater opportunity for deliberation, might also give some thought to this matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would not concede the other place has that kind of jurisdiction over money bills.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. This is no reflection on Your Honour's decision which I must accept. I wish to ask whether Your Honour can assure himself whether his law officer advised him prior to the introduction of this bill that it was not in conformity with the requirements of a bill to be brought into the House.


Mr. Speaker:: To my knowledge, there is no procedure whereby the hon. member and I can get into a question and answer session, perhaps fortunately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 11, 1974


BILINGUALISM
Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce today that the federal-provincial program on bilingualism in education has been extended to include the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Because of the population differences between the Territories and the provinces, the program is a special arrangement in providing assistance to meet a unique situation. The federal government will assist the Territories with the supplementary costs of providing additional second language instruction in the school system over a five-year period. A total of $300,000 has been earmarked for both territories for the fiscal year 1974-75.
The Yukon and Northwest Territories intend to increase the amount of French being taught as a second language, and are interested in establishing resource centres where appropriate measures will also be taken to improve second language teacher training and the teaching methods employed. In this connection two special projects have already been approved, one of $53,000 for the Yukon and another of $67,000 for the Northwest Territories. [Translation]
I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the extension of the federal-provincial program on bilingualism in education, to include the Yukon and Northwest Territories, bears an historical significance. The inter-governmental co-operation in matters of second language teaching is no longer limited to the federal-provincial scene; it now includes federal-territorial arrangements.
Part of the funds available for these special projects will be used for teaching and materials. The costs of student and teacher exchanges will also be covered by the grants. An improved contact with the French language is thus promoted and a more dynamic approach to the second language is foreseen.

Let me take this opportunity to reiterate my firm belief that the teaching of our two official languages in our schools is the catalyst of national unity and solidarity. The study of the second language in each Canadian province and territory is an essential step toward mutual understanding between Canadians from all parts of the country.
I should like at this time to express my great satisfaction that federal support has been extended to the Territories in order that these Canadian citizens may take advantage of the language programs administered by my department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's announcement is, of course, welcome. My only concern is that it took some two years for the government to realize that people north of the sixtieth parallel are in fact part of this country, are in fact Canadians and are in fact entitled to participate fully in this kind of program. I hope the minister responsible for DREE will wake up one of these days and realize that we are part of Canada and should be able to participate in his national program as well.
Bilingualism in Education
One of the difficulties in this kind of program is that in the north we are dealing with vast distances. The Yukon with its 207,000 square miles and the Northwest Territories with its 1,300,000 square miles have schools scattered throughout these areas. It would cost a relatively lesser amount to implement a program such as this in the south. The very nature of the geographic distances with which we are dealing in the north are such as to require a duplication of facilities which would not be required in the south. Therefore, I am in some considerable degree of doubt as to the amounts that are being set aside accomplishing the very desirable objective that the minister has stated.
However, I should inform him that unlike a good many areas in the south we are considerably ahead in regard to second language teaching. It is now mandatory as low as grade 6, and in some schools as low as grade 4, and I believe this sets some kind of record compared with other southern areas. I have been one who, for a good many years now, has been advocating this kind of program. Indeed, as far back as 1960 I was saying in the House and elsewhere that the kind of program that is being carried out now, and is belatedly being extended to other sectors in the north, is a program that will bring about the kind of unity which we in this country all desire to see.
One last word, Mr. Speaker, in this connection. It is sad to see the culture of the north, based as it is on the language of the indigenous peoples, disappearing. I speak of those whose culture is based on the Louscheaux tongue, like my colleague from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), on the Slavey, on the Dog Rib, on the Cree. These are the only people in this country, it seems to me, who are being left out of the whole picture in programs of this nature. Their purpose is the preservation of the identity and the culture of Canadians, in this case the first Canadians.
I,	personally, am not too impressed with the benefits to be derived from the moneys going into the multicultural program. I would far sooner see, as a northerner of many, many years standing, and as one who is close to the feelings and desires of the native peoples of the north, some effort being made to preserve their culture through the preservation of their language, which is rapidly disappearing in a society which seems to be devoted entirely to integrating and assimilating the culture of the native people. If only we would look at their problems in the same light as we look at the problems of French and English Canada, then perhaps we would be doing a service not only to those who deserve to have their culture preserved but to ourselves as well.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to express a few words regarding the minister's announcement and at the same time to thank the minister for giving notice of his announcement. I welcome the announcement on behalf of the New Democratic Party, but more so on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories. These people are already bilingual to a large extent. Many of my constituents speak two of ten and even 12 languages, five or six major dialects in Inuktitut, and four major dialects in the Indian language.
2146

December 11, 1974
Bilingualism in Education
I hope that this program will give these people assistance so that a large number of my constituents in the near future will be trilingual.
I also hope that this program will help the schools, especially the smaller schools and villages that are making efforts to preserve native dialects in their part of the country. I find it very encouraging indeed to walk into a place like Fort Rae, Old Crow in the Yukon, or Fort McPherson where I come from, and see the younger people taking an interest in their native tongue and being given an opportunity to preserve and to learn languages that are dying in many parts of the Northwest Territories. This is sad, but I certainly hope this program will give assistance.
I also see this announcement by the minister as another step toward provincial status for the Northwest Territories by virtue of the fact that that is an intricate government program that will need the co-operation of the territorial administration. I hope other departments will take a look at the program, too. The $300,000 share of the program, small as it is, will substantially increase in the future, and I hope other departments will look to the north and devise intergovernmental programs to deal with such programs as housing. One of our major pressing problems in the north, which has much to do with other problems like the numbers of poor, people being able to hold on to jobs, young people dropping out of school, is housing.
May I echo the remarks of my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and remind the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) that he has been conspicuously absent in the north. This is one part of the country that I think can make good use of programs that are brought forward by the minister's department. In conclusion, I am indeed happy with the minister's announcement, and I hope this approach will be continued.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, we understand the very good intentions of the minister and we are grateful to him. Apparently, however, the amounts of money being spent in an effort to promote bilingualism are not giving very good results. Some day the government will have to consider applying adequate solutions to our domestic problems.
Hon. members will no doubt remember that the Social Credit Party has already proposed very adequate solutions which would permit all Canadians, both French-speaking and English-speaking, to really participate in the development of their country.
Mr. Speaker, it is not so much a matter of bilingualism as a matter of mutual respect for the culture and language of the other group. In other words, we must strive for a federal administration where English departments would work side by side with French departments. Then, and only then, would we have real bilingualism.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the government has refused to conduct an inquiry into the Seafarers' International Union until specific charges of a federal nature have been laid in this House, in view of the fact that at this time I have in my possession testimony from numerous sources documenting not only violence within the SIU but exposing the illegal election of the president of that union as well as illegal meetings held for purposes of ratifying a federal contract which the membership of various locals had overwhelmingly rejected, and in view of the fact, therefore, that the federal government must be involved in the investigation of these charges, which go beyond the jurisdiction of both the metropolitan Toronto and the Ontario provincial police forces, based on my specific charges I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the government be immediately instructed to initiate a federal public inquiry into the operations of the Seafarers' International Union with sufficient scope to investigate violence, voting irregularities, hiring hall practices, and all other relative matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raises in this motion a subject which has been before the House on several previous occasions. However, he does allude to the possession of fresh information which may bring the matter into some question of immediacy and urgency. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be debated. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of urgent representations that have come to me by telegram from Winnipeg, I seek leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I present the motion in reasonable terms that I hope the House will accept. I may say that I have spoken to the minister concerned about my motion.
In view of the difficulties being experienced by the Air Canada finance branch employees in connection with
December 11, 1974

their rights under the settlement of their dispute with Air Canada which was achieved in 1973, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House requests the Minister of Labour to make the services of his Department available for the purposes of securing a settlement of the issues in dispute between the Finance Branch Employees and Air Canada at Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated at this time without the unanimous consent of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No debate is necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that no debate is necessary, however it is possible. Is there unanimous consent that the motion be debated at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Mr.   Speedier@: There not being unanimous consent, the matter cannot be proceeded with at this time.


FAILURE TO RECLASSIFY POSITIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss the failure of Air Canada, a Crown corporation, to fulfil its obligations to its own employees on the basis of an understanding ending the strike on August 13, 1973 that all jobs would be reclassified. To date, almost a year and a half later, no progress has been made in respect of reclassification, and retroactive adjustments have not been processed, with the result that the morale of some 600 employees of Air Canada is deteriorating to the extent that we may be facing more problems.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I second that motion?


An hon. Member:: What motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have taken the position on previous occasions that motions proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 must not only have as their subject matter a question of some considerable importance, which of course this matter has, but in addition, by the very language of the rule, must have an ingredient of urgent and pressing necessity.
The motion put forward by the hon. member contains a reference to problems which have been in existence, to use the words of the motion, for about a year and a half. There is nothing following thereafter which indicates an immediate crisis or a matter of urgency. Accordingly, I regret that I am not able to put the question to the House pursuant to Standing Order 43.
Order Paper Questions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member may have inadvertently suggested that this matter was a hangover from last year when the settlement was achieved. Actually the settlement was achieved in August 1973, but the difficulties which are frustrating the employees in Winnipeg today are current. They are not last year's problems, they are today's problems.


REFERENCE TO ACTIONS OF MEMBERS OF PRESS GALLERY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion in a somewhat different vein. It arises from the fact that I have noticed members in the press gallery today flashing 20-dollar bills from their pockets. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House strike a committee chaired by the hon. member for Temiscamingue with a view to encouraging members of the fourth estate to reduce this really exorbitant tipping fee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As worthy as the hon. member's motion may be, it does not seem to have attached to it any authority under which he seeks the floor to move it.


LAW REFORM COMMISSION ACT
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-43, to amend the Law Reform Commission Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 35, 45, 92, 107, 123, 135, 160, 281, 422, 432, 482, 528, 569, 638, 660, 731 to 757 inclusive, 770, 797, 803, 846 and 847.
Mr. Speaker, if questions nos. 177 and 203 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions nos. 892 and 1008?
28626-21/2

December 11, 1974
Order Paper Questions
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Did the government contribute financially and/or with services to the International Festival of Francophone Youth held in Quebec City, August 1974 and, if so, what was (a) the nature of such assistance (b) the amount involved?
2.	Was any financial assistance given by the government to feed and house those attending the festival and, if so, to whom was such assistance given and, in each case, in what amounts?
3.	(a) What was the purpose of (b) what activities were included as part of this festival?
4.	Did any (a) protests (b) altercations (c) incidents occur during this festival and, if so, what was the nature of such disobedience in each case?
5.	Were any (a) arrests made (b) charges laid (c) fines or sentences imposed on any individuals as a result and, if so, what was the nature of them in each case?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary o£ State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) At the Ottawa-Quebec General Conference in October 1971 all the member countries agreed to hold an international youth festival in 1974 as one of the activities of the agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation. The agency, of which Canada is a member, was founded at the Niamey conference in March 1970 and is one of the foremost international institutions of Francophonie. In 1972 the Canadian government, by a cabinet decision, agreed to hold the festival in Quebec City from August 13 to 24, 1974. In June of 1973 the Canadian and Quebec governments agreed to turn over the organization, administration and management of the festival to a private, non-profit corporation, which was duly formed under the Canada Corporations Act and operated under the business name "Societe d'Accueil du Festival International de la Jeunesse Francophone". The two governments also agreed to appoint the members of the board of the Societe d'Accueil. Because of the international nature of the festival, the Department of External Affairs assumed responsibility for liaison with the agency, the governments of the countries involved, and the appropriate departments and provincial governments. The Secretary of State Department was responsible for coordinating cultural activities and Canadian cultural participation at the festival. The Department of National Health and Welfare was in charge of co-ordinating sports activities and organizing Canadian participation in these activities. Besides Quebec, the provinces of New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba participated at the festival;
(b)	The Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation was responsible for international travel and providing meals for the delegates in Quebec City. The Societe d'Accueil, for its part, was responsible for administration, information, communications, accommodation and local transportation of delegates, as well as official ceremonies and providing facilities for the cultural and sports events. It received a general contribution of $1.4 million-$900,000 from the Canadian government and $500,000 from the Quebec government.
2.	As explained above, the lodging of delegates was the responsibility of the Societe d'Accueil and their board was the responsibility of the agency. However, the Department

of External Affairs invited at its expense one minister and two advisers from each delegation of the 25 countries that attended the conference of youth and sports ministers of French-speaking countries, held in Montebello from August 9 to 12, 1974, to visit Quebec City for the duration of the festival. An outlay of $117,000 was approved by Treasury Board for this purpose. However, we are unable at the present time to specify the exact amount of these expenses, since all the hotel and travel bills have not yet been submitted for payment. So far expenses for this item have amounted to about $70,000.
3.	(a) The festival, which brought together more than
2,000	young people from 25 French-speaking member countries of the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation, was intended to show the common characteristics of all French-speaking countries, while showing the richness and diversity of their respective cultures; (b) The festival included two separate but complementary sides; cultural and athletic. On the cultural side, there were exhibitions, workshops, and performances (such as theatrical productions, poetry, music and film). In sports there were both competitions in Olympic events and traditional games played in certain regions of the participating countries.
4.	The news media reported some demonstrations or incidents, but these were not of a nature to compromise the success of the festival or its normal operation.
5.	To our knowledge, no such action was taken.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the cost of implementing the objectives of the Official Languages Act in each fiscal year since the passage of the legislation?
2.	Of the total amount, how much was expended by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in each fiscal year it has been in operation?
3.	Of the total amount, how much was expended on language training in each fiscal year and of the total amount expended on language training, how much was used for training (a) in the English language (b) in the French language?
4.	Of the total amount, how much was designated for special incentives to government employees, either employed directly by the Public Service Commission, or by Crown companies or government boards?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: 1.
The cost of the programs by fiscal year, which are directed to the implementation of the Official Languages Act since its adoption in 1969 is:
Fiscal Year
Expenditures $000
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
11,440
10,172
22,599
52,385
00,780
105,219*
'Amount provided in 1974-75 estimates.
2.	The breakdown of total expenditures for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages by fiscal year, since it began operating in 1970 is as follows:
December 11, 1974

Fiscal year
1969-	70
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
*Amount provided in 1974-75
Expenditures ($000)
919
1,057
1,449
1,876*
3.	Since the fiscal year 1969-70, the cost of language training expressed in terms of Public Service Commission Language Bureau expenditures is as follows:
Fiscal year
1969-	70
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
*Ainount provided in 1974-75 Mai
Expenditures ($000)
5,130 7,042 9,663 11,641 15,945 28,339*
and Supplementary B Estimates.
Order Paper Questions
Canal System and (a) what is the annual rental and on what basis is it payable (b) what is the duration of the lease and is there a renewal option (c) who is the owner of the property?
2.	(a) With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,845 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament to the effect that the government would proceed with construction of a new Rideau Canal System headquarters at Smiths Falls in the fiscal year 1975-76, has this decision been changed (b) does the government still intend to proceed with construction during the fiscal year 1975-76 and, if not, specifically what are all the reasons?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. (a) The lease was entered into by the Department of Public Works on June 26, 1974. The annual rent is $28,743.72, or $5.25 per square foot for 5,475 square feet; (b) The lease term is for two years, with two one-year options; (c) The lessor's name and address are: Pepperidge Properties, Box 250, Merrickville, Ontario.
2.	(a) The construction of a new Rideau Canal headquarters at Smiths Falls must, of necessity, be deferred and funds reallocated to the higher priority of rehabilitating locks and dams necessary to keep the system in operation; (b) Design for the new headquarters building will be completed in 1975-76 and funds are tentatively scheduled for its construction in 1976-77.
The Public Service Commission does not have a breakdown of costs between cost of language training in the English language and the French language.
4.	No special incentive programs exist.


Mr. Allard: Does the government subsidize the Canadian Council on Social Development and, if so (a) for how many years (b) through what department (c) what amounts were granted in 1971, 1972 and 1973 (d) did the government make a grant as capital for the Council at the time it was created or at some later stage of its development?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes; (a) Subsidies have been provided to the council since 1921-22 under its initial name of the Canadian Council on Child Welfare and then under its subsequent names of the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare (1934), the Canadian Welfare Council (1935), and the Canadian Council on Social Development (1970); (b) In 1970-71 a $30,000 grant was made to the Canadian Welfare Council (now the Canadian Council on Social Development) by Correctional Services, Department of the Solicitor General (Canadian Penitentiary Service). This amount was added to Health and Welfare's sustaining grant of $90,000; (c) Year 1971-72, amount $205,000; year 1972-73, amount $275,000; year 1973-74, amount $275,000; (d) A capital grant of $62,500 was awarded for the council's building expansion program through Supplementary Estimates in 1969-70.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date did the Department of Public Works sign a lease on the property formerly known as Cairns Garment Works, William Street, Smiths Falls, Ontario for use as the headquarters of the Rideau


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of Agriculture received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: (a) 613; (b) 52; (c) One.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of Public Works received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: (a) 427; (b) 16; (c) One.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	To this date, what is the total estimated amount of the claims for compensation under the Federal Aid Program for last spring's floods in the Province of Quebec?
2.	What is the estimated contribution of the government?
3.	Are discussions with the provincial government under way or being arranged to provide for an equivalent amount of money to prevent further floods?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am
informed by the Departments of Finance and the Environment as follows: 1. The federal government has indicated that it will reimburse the province of Quebec for a portion

December 11, 1974
Order Paper Questions
of the expenditures incurred by the provincial government as a result of the flooding. To date the province has provided no official estimate of the expenditures it expects to make for this purpose.
2.	Since no estimate of provincial expenditures has yet been received, it is not possible to provide an estimate of the amount of the federal contribution.
3.	No discussions have been held with the provincial government to provide any money to prevent further flooding, nor are any such discussions scheduled. However, the federal and provincial governments have begun an intensive two-year study of methods to alleviate flooding in the Montreal area. The study will examine several alternatives including changes in upstream regulation of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers and possible structural changes in the channels around Montreal.


Mr. Herbert: Are there lengthly delays in air mail service between Canada and Great Britain and, if so, have the reasons for the delays been identified and have discussions taken place between the respective departments with a view to improving this service?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Air mails are transported on a frequency of at least once a day by the direct services of Air Canada and British Airways in both directions. Direct air mail bags are made up for the major cities in both countries.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the project Bizarreries on the Island, approved by the government and filed as project No. 4H-3684 of the Opportunities for Youth Program, been abandoned by its promoters even before the beginning of its activities and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Were the project representatives living on lie Bizard or did they have any knowledge concerning the Island?
3.	Did the project representatives work on another Opportunities for Youth project during the summer?
4.	Is the government aware that students apply for more than one project under the program?
5.	Has the government also received an application under No. 4H-3936 called Centennial Leisure Activities?
6.	Were the project representatives residents of lie Bizard?
7.	Had this project been recommended by, among others, the Mayor of lie Bizard and the MP of the constituency which includes lie Bizard?
8.	Were the funds asked for projects 4H-3936 and 4H-3684 approximately the same?
9.	Has the government rejected for the second time project No. 4H-3936 after project 4H-3684 had been abandoned and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes Project 4H 3684 Bizarreries sur l'lle was abandoned by participants upon approval because they had submitted two projects and, both being approved, they decided to do the other called "Toutes Sortes de Couleur".
2.	Participants did not live on lie Bizard but they received the support of Mr. Pierre Roussin, director of Jacques Bizard School which is located on the island.
3.	Yes, Project "Toutes Sortes de Couleurs".
4.	Project participants sometimes submit more than one project. In this case project representatives were different, so that it was impossible to determine in preselection that both projects were from the same group.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes.
8.	Yes.
9.	Project 4H 3936 was rejected only once because it failed to meet the criteria or to follow the guidelines of the Opportunities for Youth Program. The preparation period for the project was six weeks, twice as long as the allowable period. The activities of the project were too loosely described on the application to be properly assessed. Moreover, the participants did not say how many children they would reach through their project, making it impossible for project officers to know how many supervisors could be employed. The program tries to maintain a ratio of fifteen children to one supervisor.


Mr. Ellis: What was the number of (a) positions (b) staff employed in categories SX3, SX2, SX1, PM7, PM6, PM5, PM4, PM3, PM2 and PM1 in the Department of Manpower and Immigration responsible for the Canada Manpower Centre Program on May 1, 1967, May 1, 1971 and May 1, 1974 and what positions in those categories are proposed for the balance of 1974?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) May 1, 1967, Not available; May 1, 1971, 4,008; May 1, 1974, 4,826; (b) May 1, 1967, Not available; May 1, 1971, SX3, 1; SX2, 1; SX1, 7; PM 7, 10; PM 6, 45; PM5, 90; PM 4, 234; PM 3, 497; PM 2, 2637; PM 1, 2; May 1, 1974: SX 3, 1; SX 2, 4; SX 1, 10; PM 7, 25; PM 6, 90; PM 5, 148; PM 4, 348; PM 3, 659; PM 2, 2,824; PM 1, 2; Proposed for balance of 1974: SX 3, 1; SX 2, 4; SX 1, 7; PM 7, 25; PM 6, 96; PM 5, 150; PM 4, 369; PM 3, 984; PM 2, 3,024; PM 1, 215.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware of any or all of the movements of FLQ exiles from the moment they left Cuba and, if so (a) what are the known details (b) where is each specific individual believed to be at this time?
2.	Has the government or anyone acting on its behalf made inquiries to any foreign government, private agency or police organization concerning these exiles since they left Cuba and, if so, on what date, to whom and what are all details in this regard?
3.	Has the government made any inquiries to, or received any information from, the Cuban Government in regard to circumstances surrounding their departure from Cuba and, if so, on what date and what are the full details?
4.	Have or do any of these exiles possess travel documents or passports issued by Canada at any time since their original departure

December 11, 1974

from Canada and, if so, on what date, where, by whom and to whom were such documents issued?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The government is aware of the movements of certain FLQ members who left Cuba in recent months, (a) The known details are that Mr. Langlois, Mr. and Mrs. Lanctot and Mr. Carbonneau arrived in Paris from Prague on June 20; Mr. and Mrs. Cossette-Trudel arrived in Paris from Prague on July 31. (b) All are reported to be living in the Paris area.
2.	Yes. The Department of External Affairs held discussions with the competent French authorities. It is not considered in the public interest for reasons of national security to disclose the details of these discussions. The R.C.M.P. liaison officer in Paris contacted the French authorities and was advised of their location.
3.	Yes. It is not considered to be in the public interest for reasons of national security to disclose the details of discussions with other governments on this matter.
4.	None of the exiles who have been charged with crimes arising from the 1970 kidnapping of Mr. Cross have been issued with Canadian travel documents or passports.


Mr. Herbert: In the last year for which the information is available, how many public servants in the Department of Veterans Affairs who received a gross remuneration in excess of $20,000 also received a veteran's pension in excess of (a) $5,000 per year (b) $10,000 per year?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: As of November, 1974: (a) Three; (b) Nil.


Mr. Symes: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Public Works on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. 1972/ 73, $251,000.00; 1973/74, $348,000.00. These figures comprise everything spent by Public Relations and Information Services, including salaries.
2.	Graphic Communications Inc. of Montreal were awarded a contract for marketing of the commercial space for Phase 1 of Place du Portage. 1972/73, $32,137.94; 1973/74, $74,545.00.
Note; These amounts are not part of the publicity and information expenditures of the department, but are promotional charges in connection with the shopping centre on five lower levels of this building.
3.	An amount of $6,337, included in the answer to Part 1, was spent on the production of French and English bro-
Order Paper Questions
chures which were given to each employee. These brochures presented the reorganization of the department, its goals and aims and a description of the work of each branch following in the reorganization. This brochure has also been used as the major mailing piece in answering enquiries about the department. The brochure was printed in 1972 by Department of Supply and Services' printers.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the past fiscal year what was the total amount paid by (a) CNR (b) Air Canada as damages for (i) lost (ii) damaged freight?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. (i) $1,360,063; (ii) $8,096,187. In relation to freight revenue this is 1.05 per cent, which is low in comparison to other Class 1 carriers.
The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (i) In the past fiscal year, the total amount paid in claims for lost freight was $233,720, or 0.41 per cent of total revenue, (ii) In the past fiscal year, the total amount paid in claims for damaged freight was $303,490, or 0.53 per cent of total revenue.


Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of Supply and Services to Lapointe Transport Ltd., 105 Industriel Blvd., Longueuil, Quebec, since January 1, 1972?
2.	What was the amount of the contract in each case?
3.	Were public tenders called in each case and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1 and 2. The following contracts were placed by the Department of Supply and Services, for amounts shown and on behalf of departments indicated. Fiscal year 197273: 58 transactions-$32,032. Records for this year do not allow for a breakout of individual moves. Fiscal year 1973-74: $437.39, U.I.C.; $990.00, MOT; $36.30, Storage charges MOT; $30.30, Storage charges MOT; $204.75, MOT; $284.76, Agriculture; $513.57, U.I.C.; $907.92, Post Office; $515.61, U.I.C.; $339.30, MOT; $524.34, U.I.C.; $598.58, NHW; ($517.60, $1,169.14, $480.76, $437.61, $505.58, $605.07, $494.13), Canada Manpower Mobility Program. April 1, 1974 to Sept. 30, 1974: $512.00, Manpower and Immigration; $404.83, Agriculture; $716.70, Manpower and Immigration; $559.69, National Revenue (Customs); $317.70, U.I.C.; $339.88, U.I.C.; $982.62, DRB; $1,007.84, Canada Manpower Mobility Program.
3.	Public tenders were not called. The government maintains a list of approved movers by region. All movers in a region utilize the same tariff, i.e. identical rates. An equal opportunity for business is afforded each company through an equalization register sourcing system.

December 11, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Agriculture, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of every department, which cost in manpower and time would be exorbitant or prohibitive.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Communications, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firms(s) or individual (s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of National Defence, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply pur-

chase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-74?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of the Environment, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of External Affairs, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?
December 11, 1974


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Finance, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) person-al/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of National Health and Welfare, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.
Order Paper Questions


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firms(s) or individu-al(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Justice, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Labour, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Manpower and Immigration, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?

December 11, 1974
Order Paper Questions
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Post Office Department, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) person-al/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Public Works, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of National Revenue, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


MINISTRY OF STATE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of the Secretary of State, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/for received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of the Solicitor General, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
December 11, 1974

2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Supply and Services, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Transport, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


TREASURY BOARD-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Treasury Board, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/ professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.
Order Paper Questions


MINISTRY OF STATE FOR URBAN AFFAIRS-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT-NUMBER AND VALUE OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Department of the Environment (Fisheries), what was the number and value of (a) management consultant service contracts (b) personal/professional service contracts (c) material and supply purchase contracts (d) equipment acquisition contracts, during the fiscal year 1973-1974?
2.	By province, what was the number and value of such contracts during the same fiscal year?
3.	What was the total value and name of the firm(s) or individual(s), by geographic location, who were awarded such contracts?
4.	What was the number and geographic location of tenders called and/or received within each of the categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 731 answered this day.


DELAY IN FIRST CLASS MAIL DELIVERY-HOLLAND TO EDMONTON
Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	For what reason was there a delay of a first class parcel, air mail, from Holland to Edmonton in the name of Mrs. E. L. Larsen, Box 608, Ponoka, Alberta?
2.	Is one month delivery for first class air mail unreasonable and, if so, will the Department make amends for loss and inconvenience?

December 11, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: 1. Records indicate the parcel was addressed to Mrs. E. L. Larsen, Plant Protection Division, Canadian Department of Agriculture, Edmonton. The manner of addressing caused some confusion in the handling of the notice card from Customs, with the result that considerable delay ensued. Had the parcel been addressed as indicated, to Box 608, Ponoka, it is not likely that there would have been any problem.
2. Under normal circumstances, yes. The Canada Post Office has no provision for compensation in a situation such as this.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD. PERSONNEL
Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by Northern Transportation Co. Ltd. (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Company?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a) March 31, 1968, 89 employees; March 31,	1970, 150
employees; March 31, 1972, 160 employees; March 31, 1974, 269 employees; (b) March 31, 1968, $624,818; March 31, 1970, $1,150,017; March 31, 1972, $1,452,219; March 31, 1974, $2,558,929; (c) (i) March 31, 1968, 2 employees; March 31, 1970, 3 employees; March 31, 1972, 4 employees; March 31, 1974, 9 employees; (ii) March 31, 1968, None; March 31, 1970, None; March 31, 1972, None; March 31, 1974, Two; (iii) 1968/1970/1972/1974, None.
2. As N.T.C.L. is engaged in a competitive business enterprise, it would be neither in the company's nor the public interest to divulge proprietary information regarding specific employee salaries.


NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the National Battlefields Commission (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Commission?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. March 31, 1968, (a) 20; (b) $111,939; (c) None; March 31, 1970, (a) 22; (b) $130,052; (c) None; March 31, 1972, (a) 22; (b) $152,665; (c) None; March 31, 1974, (a) 23; (b) $193,280; (c) None.
2. March 31, 1968, $7,500 to $10,000; $6,500 to $9,000; $5,500 to $8,000; $5,000 to $7,500; $5,000 to $7,500; March 31, 1970, $7,500 to $10,000; $6,500 to $9,000; $5,500 to $8,000; $5,500 to $8,000; $5,500 to $8,000; March 31, 1972, $8,500 to $11,000; $7,500 to $10,000; $6,500 to $9,000; $6,000 to $8,500; $6,000 to $8,500; March 31, 1974, $10,000 to $12,500; $9,000 to $11,500; $8,000 to $10,500; $7,500 to $10,000; $7,500 to $10,000.


VANCOUVER POST OFFICE-ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL DURING CHRISTMAS SEASON
Mr. Friesen: 1.	(a) How many additional persons were hired to work in the Vancouver Post Office during the Christmas season of 1973 (b) what were the names and addresses of such persons?
2.	How many cheques were issued due to this increase in personnel?
3.	Is it necessary for the person to whom the cheque is issued to pick up this cheque?
4.	During periods of high additional help in the Vancouver Post Office, what measures are taken to see that those who have been hired perform the duties for which they are being paid?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: 1. (a) Approximately 4,200 additional persons; (b) The research required to produce this information would be excessively time consuming and costly.
2.	Approximately 8,000.
3.	No. These cheques are sent by mail by the Vancouver office, Department of Supply and Services, by whom they are prepared and issued.
4.	Temporary supervisors are appointed from among regular employees in a ratio of one temporary supervisor for approximately 20 additional Christmas employees.


CPR PENSION FUND
Mr. Friesen: Is it the intention of the government to assume responsibility for the CPR Pension Fund and operate it under the Canada Pension Fund and, if so (a) what is the intended date for this operation (b) will the terms under which those who have contributed to the CPR fund be honoured or will their contributions fall immediately under the terms of the Canada Pension Fund?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): No.


*RCMP-PAYMENT BY PROVINCES TO FEDERAL TREASURY FOR SERVICES RENDERED
Mr. Towers: What is the amount paid by each province to the federal treasury for services rendered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General:	(Royal Canadian
Mounted Police) British Columbia, $12,830,634; Alberta, $9,587,027; Saskatchewan, $7,727,531; Manitoba, $5,502,512; New Brunswick, $3,485,343; Newfoundland, $3,771,327; Nova Scotia, $4,154,823; Prince Edward Island, $882,478; Northwest Territories, $2,040,519; Yukon, $749,997. The above is for provincial policing services during the 19731974 fiscal year.


CONVICTIONS OF CAPITAL MURDER AS A RESULT OF KILLING POLICE OFFICERS
Mr. Woolliams: Since 1968, how many convictions of capital murder were there as a result of killing police officers, etc. and were all convicted granted commutations by Royal prerogative?
December 11, 1974


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is ten; nine convicted for the murder of police officers and one for the murder of a prison guard. In five instances the death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. The remaining five cases are not yet subject to confirmation of sentence or commutation, since appeals are still before the courts.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the last year for which figures were available, what was the total per capita investment in housing for the people of Canada?
2.	In the same year, what was the total per capita investment for Indian housing from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appropriations, band revenues, and individual contributions?
3.	What were the average salaries and wages (excluding military pay) for 1972 earned by Canada's labour force?
4.	What was the average income of Canadian Indian families exlud-ing general assistance and family allowances?
5.	What was the average age of death for all Canadians, male and female, for the last year for which figures are available?
6.	What was the average age of death for Canadian Indians, male and female, for the same year?
7.	Of the total Canadian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less?
8.	Of the total Indian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less?
9.	Of the total Canadian population, how many live in homes which are provided with electricity, with sewer services or septic tanks, with running water, with indoor baths?
10.	Of the total Indian population, how many live in homes which are provided with electricity, with sewer services or septic tanks, with running water, with indoor baths?
Return tabled.


LIP-AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT IN EACH OF 264 FEDERAL CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	For the 1973-74 Local Initiative Program, what amount of money was spent in each of the 264 federal constituencies?
2.	For the 1974-75 Local Initiative Program, what amount of money is proposed to be allocated to each of the 264 federal constituencies?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Crouse:: I rise on a point order, Mr. Speaker, if I may. On September 30 I placed question No. 34 on the
Oral Questions
Order Paper. It is a relatively straightforward question seeking information. I wonder just when I might anticipate an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Are the other notices of motions for papers allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could he give the House some indication concerning what he has in mind about an agreement with regard to labour, industry and profits and whether the government intends to achieve a consensus relating to guidelines because the Prime Minister did not come forward with very much information yesterday. Does the Minister of Finance intend to seek agreement or consensus with regard to guidelines?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the government after the turn of the year is to continue the informal discussions some ministers and the Prime Minister have been having with the various sectors of the economy to see, in view of the fact that a real transfer of resources caused by the quadrupling of oil prices and the increase in agricultural prices around the world, whether in the light of that, restraint might be exercised voluntarily by the various sectors of the economy-business, industry, agriculture, the professions and governments. This will be on an exploratory basis with the leaders of the various sectors of the economy and if the results are favourable, then of course we could move into a more definitive stage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has guidelines in mind and whether he also has in mind business and labour to accept those guidelines. Is this what the Minister of Finance has in mind? Would he mind not trying to fool around with the House and the country, but come clean and tell Members of Parliament what he has in mind.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at this stage, as I said on earlier occasions and on budget night, it is not the intention of the government to impose guidelines on segments of the economy. At this stage we are exploring with the private sector in all its domains what in their view a reasonable approach might be on their part collectively and severally to restraint on the demand against the total economy.

December 11, 1974
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance be a little more out in the open about the kind of game he may be up to. Could he tell the House what he is trying to do. Is he simply going to the people in organized labour and business and asking them to put forward a policy for the government to follow to fight inflation? In view of the 12 per cent rate of inflation and the attitude of the government, what is the minister proposing? Is this just another game or another kind of a stall for several months? What is the minister up to?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Would you repeat the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the Leader of the Opposition that as this process goes forward we will be wanting to explain it more definitely than the hon. gentleman was able to explain his compulsory system earlier in the year.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition on a final supplementary question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance could place before the House their position and their policy. Is it too much to ask the Minister of Finance what the policy of the government is with regard to finance? Is the Minister of Finance totally incapable and unable to place before the House his policy and are the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister content simply to try to hide behind some kind of a screen and forget about everything else.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I spent an hour and a half on budget night being as frank as I could with the hon. gentleman about what our policy is.


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR CONSUMERS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Finance who behaves like the Grinch who stole Christmas. In light of the consultation that is supposed to be taking place, and in view of the fact that in the midst of this consultation food prices continue to escalate with a 15 per cent increase this year and another anticipated 15 per cent increase next year, and in view of the undertaking given by the present government that it would not allow any disruptive increases in food prices, I ask the minister what immediate steps he proposes to take to provide relief to Canadians now and not somewhere down the road when a consensus is finally achieved.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know how attractive it is to the hon. member to seek instant solutions, but we have described to him that inflation is far more deeply imbedded into our economy and to the world economies for that type of solution to be obtainable. We have set it out in terms of the combination of fiscal and monetary policy, in terms of supply and tariff policies and in terms of increasing the agricultural production here in this country.


REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF FLUID MILK SUBSIDY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the 8.6 per cent increase in the price of fluid milk may I ask the minister if the government will now reinstitute the consumer price subsidy so that this fairly essential element in the diet of most Canadians can be lower in price or that the price can be held at the present level?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture described in the House how the provincial ministers requested that removal.


POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF INCOMES POLICY AND WEALTH TAX TO ACHIEVE EQUITY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance concerning his approach in trying to get some kind of consensus with the various sectors in the community in respect of dealing with the economic situation. Would the minister give us an assurance, in view of the fact that he made no specific proposal himself, that if this government does come up with some kind of an incomes policy it will duplicate what the governments in Great Britain and Sweden have done with similar kinds of policies by introducing simultaneously a wealth tax to achieve some kind of equity and offer assurances that if you have an incomes policy the position of average and low income people will improve.


John Napier Turner: Without wishing to cast any reflection on what other governments may be doing, although I will take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration, I am not sure I would want to accept for the moment as my model or the model for this country the British economy.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Whenever the Minister of Finance does not want to deal with a point, he brings up some irrelevancy.
I will direct my question to his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said over a month ago that his department was working on a proposal that would bring some rationality to the sugar industry with the intention of bringing down the price of sugar to consumers in Canada. Given the impact of sugar prices on so many food items, could the Prime Minister tell the House when we might expect some concrete proposal from the government in this area?


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. December 11, 1974

Speaker, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is actively studying the whole question of sugar prices, as well as other matters that are related to the cost of food in this country. The report has not yet come forward indicating the results of those investigations. I will remind hon. members that prior to this parliament a bill was introduced called an anti-profiteering bill which would give a legislative base for action on the part of the government to protect Canadian consumers. It was rejected by the opposition parties.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: I will direct a final supplementary question to the Minister of Finance in the hope of getting some kind of specific commitment from this government. I am reflecting the total dismay of all the premiers who attended the conference recently in Ottawa. Nothing came from this conference. Is the minister considering any form of food subsidy-milk has been referred to and there is a whole range of other items the cost of which will continue to go up-to ensure in particular that the middle and low income people will be able to cope in a realistic way in the months ahead?


John Napier Turner: The purpose of the proposed tax cut for 1974-75 was to restore disposable income to Canadian consumers, particularly the lower income groups, in order to compensate them for what has been happening to their family budgets.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the yearly increase in the consumer price index is now 12 per cent, and 15 per cent in the case of food, and in view of the fact that the pension escalation that takes place in January is to be only 10 per cent in the case of pensions escalated annually, and about the same in the case of quarterly escalation, will the minister immediately cause a review of the escalation formula so that it will more closely match the needs of our people and be on a current basis instead of in arrears?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the consumer price index is now being reviewed by Statistics Canada. As we must wait for their report I would like to draw the attention of the member on the recent report of the Economic Council of Canada recommending that we continue to use the present index and not different indexes for various programs. Now, the entire matter is under consideration and I hope
Oral Questions
that the hon. member will make his contribution taking into account the contribution of the Economic Council of Canada on the matter.
As for other federal programs, I must remind hon. members that they are all indexed. For those that are indexed on a quarterly basis, there will be an adjustment not only in January, but also in April, July and October.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that apparently it takes time for these wheels to grind out anything, will the government consider, due to the urgent situation facing our senior citizens and other pensioners, an immediate substantial boost in the basic amounts of the various pensions to see our people through this present crisis?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that many independent persons who have examined the matter recently have come to the conclusion that, during last year, and during the present inflationary crisis, low income groups have been able, thanks to action taken by federal and provincial governments, to protect their revenues more adequately than other groups of our society.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, I shall put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since an agreement exists between the federal government and the Quebec government authorizing the federal government to transfer to Quebec the amounts collected in personal income tax by another province, will the Prime Minister tell us why he does not respect that agreement which allows Quebec to demand a huge amount of interest from roughly 20,000 Quebec taxpayers who worked in another province?


J. Judd Buchanan: I will be happy to draw this question to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue and get a reply.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the cost of living has been going up steadily each month since the Prime Minister made his famous statement and the wrestling match he has been engaged in with inflation for the past six months, would he advise the House when he expects to register his first

December 11, 1974
Oral Questions
fall on an opponent which seems to be throwing him all around the ring?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I am not as good a wrestler as the hon. member who showed the whole country how to do it, during the election period I believe, when he wrestled one of his own supporters clean through the door.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, only one at a time. I probably could use two at a time but that would be an acrobatic feat. I will convey the renewed representations of the hon. member to the RCMP and see if they wish to do something. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when the RCMP tell me something I listen.


Gerald William Baldwin: Which one do you wrestle in?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: It is obvious that the rabble is roused. Is the Prime Minister not aware of the fact that I juggle with little fellows like him, keeping three in the air and one on the ground every day.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thought that the hon. member's supplementary would have to do with the investigation of this latest evidence of violence.


INFLATION-INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT IN SEEKING CONSENSUS OF VARIOUS GROUPS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of what the Minister of Finance has been telling us, does the government intend to ask for a consensus without having any idea of its own regarding what guidelines or restraints are needed at this time? How can one obtain a consensus if the other fellow does not know what you have in mind?


John Napier Turner: The first step is to find out what the other fellow thinks is reasonable.
* *
*


THE MINISTRY
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding his limousines. I should like to state, too, that I have never asked the Prime Minister this type of question because I think he deserves proper treatment by the people of this country and he should have one limousine. I should like to ask him, however, if he would advise the RCMP or the people who provide his cars to sell one of them and thus show the people of Canada that he can live within very normal means as well?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that when the RCMP advised me that they were getting a second limousine I was most surprised because I am known as one who is restrained in spending and I knew this would be a position which would have the support of the opposition. I asked them to consider the matter very seriously which they did. They gave a series of reasons why they felt they needed two. Personally, I am only using one-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only one at a time.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of current inflation of 12 per cent and with government cash balances now at approximately $5 billion, about $500 for every taxpayer in the country, would the minister indicate if he plans to use at least some or hopefully most of these funds to retire federal debt which is now 55 per cent higher than before the present government took power, up a whopping $4.2 billion in the past year alone, and if the minister does not plan to retire debt would he indicate where the $5 billion in cash balances fits into his antiinflationary program?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the problem of debt management with the provinces over the last two days, giving them our budgetary projections and our cash requirements and they were giving me theirs on a confidential basis as they could foresee them. I said to them, as I said to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates in some detail-I am sorry the hon. member was not there at the time because I know how concerned he is about government spending-that we anticipated using these cash balances not only to finance the remainder of the current fiscal year 1974-75 where taking foreign exchange into account we need only $500 million, and that has been financed, but the next year stimulus as the hon. member knows involving a cash requirement of $3 million. We already have sufficient cash on hand so that we can take the pressure off the bond and capital markets in this country, leaving room for the provinces and the private sector which will have a moderating effect on the interest structure and in that way will have a deflationary effect.


POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN DEBT CEILING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question. In view of the minister's answer and his inclusion last evening of power in Bill C-42 to raise government loan limits by $2 Vi billion-apparently without the knowledge of the government's own House leader-would the minister indicate if he anticipates that this will be a temporary ceiling increase and that in fact he will be able to return to a debt level within the ceiling approved within the last year either on the treasury bill side or otherwise so that we will not have a permanently increased ceiling limit such as was approved last night?

December 11, 1974


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, last night the hon. member for Edmonton West put that question to me on a point of order. I said that clause 5 was a technical requirement to accommodate the increase in borrowing authority caused by the unusual success of the Canada Savings Bond campaign. Obviously, as those funds are disbursed, the outstanding debt of the country on the short term will go back to where it was before the House gave the additional authority last night.
I would say that the hon. member for Edmonton West put that question to me in clear terms last night and I answered it in clear terms.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect, that question was not put last night. I am asking if we can have an undertaking that we will return within the ceiling approved last March.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I would just ask the hon. gentleman to look at Hansard for last night where I think he will see that the exchange between the hon. member for Edmonton West and myself on that point brought this out. I would say to him that a new ceiling has been established by parliament. As the cash balances are used for next year's cash deficit, then of course the ceiling will be undoubtedly lower.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister but in his absence I will put it to the Solicitor General. In light of the statement made by Mr. Justice Norris, an established expert on the SIU, that in his view another royal commission would be valuable, will the minister take this suggestion into consideration and discuss the matter and report to the House at an early date?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Justice Norris has retired. The Minister of Justice has approached the government of Ontario and asked them to provide him with evidence with respect to the requirement for an inquiry. I am not sure whether we have received an answer from Ontario yet.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer but I should like to ask, in view of the obvious necessity of having a royal commission in the first place and in view of the current developments in the situation, does he not agree that there is sufficient indication that he should take the suggestion of Mr. Justice Norris very seriously and look into the matter?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I said Mr. Justice Norris conducted his inquiry ten years ago. I do not know how "au courant" he is with conditions today. The government of Ontario is looking into the evidence and the Minister of Justice has requested them to send all material to him so that we can make a decision. If there is enough evidence
Oral Questions
for an inquiry, we will have one but we are waiting for that evidence.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General. In view of the rejection by the government of my motion calling for a federal investigation into the SIU in spite of my specific charges and the new evidence that I have before me, has the minister changed his mind that any such charges-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to point out in passing that the hon. member, in saying something about the rejection of his proposed motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, did indicate, perhaps inadvertently, that it was a government rejection. I think that would have to be classified as something of a reflection on a proceeding that took place in the House which may be not quite proper. I do not know whether it is or not but I do not think it is possible to make that kind of reflection on a parliamentary proceeding.


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will change my question to ask, based on the fact that I have new evidence and I have laid specific charges, would the minister now reconsider his stand and initiate a federal inquiry into this matter forthwith?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member has a responsibility to turn his evidence over to the RCMP, the Ontario provincial police or the attorney general of that province. They would be pleased to see this evidence.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In answer to a question from the hon. member for Central Nova yesterday the Minister of Labour said as shown at page 2106 of Hansard:
I will say right now in the House in answer to the hon. member that if anybody wishes to launch a complaint against the present practice, or back up any allegations with any facts at all we will look into the matter.
I am willing to give the information to the Solicitor General or the Minister of Labour. Now, that I have made a specific complaint will the minister look into the matter seriously?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member did not specify which minister.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.

December 11, 1974
Oral Questions FINANCE


POSITION OF PROVINCES ON TAXATION OF RESOURCES- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the province of Quebec backed Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia in reference to provincial rights as far as resources are concerned, and in light of the fact that the minister stonewalled any compromise of the ministers of finance of the various provinces, is he going to take the same hard, cold, unreasonable, untenable attitude with the premiers of the provinces when he meets them?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the last two days a good many of the provinces, while supporting Alberta's position in principle, also took the view that it was a question of numbers sharing revenues; this included Quebec, which after having stated its constitutional issues, proposed a compromise in terms of the amount of the abatement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the report was not accurate, but I think it was. Did not Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta all support the position that resources belong to the province and the government's decision to tax resources without allowing royalties to be deducted from income calculations is untenable?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that, generally, is true. On the other hand Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and, to a certain extent, Ontario and New Brunswick took different positions.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for Fisheries. As fishermen in eastern Canada are suffering difficulties because of storm damage, foreign vessels and other stultifying causes and as it is difficult for them to qualify for unemployment insurance, will the minister indicate what progress has been made by his department or the Department of Manpower with respect to the income support program which was announced many months ago?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is similar to the answer I gave some time ago. We are actively working on this matter, but I am not satisfied that the first draft submitted to me was possibly an improvement on what we already have, and for this reason I cannot fix a timetable for this matter.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if, as a result of his consultations within the past few days with the Minister

of Fisheries for Newfoundland, ideas have been put forward about the income support program. Also, what consultation is now taking place with the government of the province in order to establish such a program within a reasonable time, as it would help the fishermen of eastern Canada?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have had extensive discussions with the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland. That was one of the issues we raised, although it was really dovetailed with some of the serious problems the fishery is encountering in the province. We are giving a great deal of time and importance to those long-term problems.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister advise the House about the latest development involving the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the workers of the British Columbia railroad? Can he say whether the workers are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Commission announced this morning, I believe, that members of the unions other than the five shopcraft unions will not be disentitled under section 44(1) (a) as from November 17. The hon. member for Vancouver South communicated with me the other evening about this matter when he raised it in the late show. I wish to make the point that the decision to remove disentitlement was not as a result of my intervention. I cannot claim that credit. The action was based on information which came forward subsequently and which relates, quite properly, to a point of jurisprudence. On that basis the Unemployment Insurance Commission made its decision.


WITHDRAWAL OF COMPANIES FROM ALBERTA OIL SANDS PROJECT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As an increasing number of firms, including Shell Explorer, Atlantic Richfield, Candel Oil and Home Oil, have indicated that they are either withdrawing from the Alberta oil sands project or contemplating doing so, and as this puts in jeopardy the three major plants-apart from the great Canadian Oil Sands plant which is already in production-which the National Energy Board says should be in production by 1982 or 1983, has the minister any announcement about steps the government intends to take in order to ensure that the development of these oil sands will go forward on time and
December 11, 1974

ensure Canadian people security of supply in the early 1980's.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may recall that last week I suggested, both to the industry and to the government of Alberta, that financial assistance would be available from the government of Canada and that this would pick up at least some of the cost being foregone by Arco and the Syncrude project. One of the principals of Syncrude will be in Ottawa this afternoon to give us a report on his discussions with Premier Lougheed. We have not heard from the province of Alberta about our offer. We will this afternoon get a fuller report than we have had heretofore about the cost factors affecting Syncrude. We shall know of the cost factor problems being faced in all the oil sands projects.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister has discussed these matters with Mr. Dickie, the mines minister of Alberta, and as he is to discuss them with Syncrude, what proposal will the government make? Is the government offering to take an equity interest in these developments, so that there will be public participation, or is the government merely contemplating advancing money by way of a loan? What is the government's position on the possibility of the people of Canada themselves owning an equity in the development of this large reservoir of oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the position we have taken both with the province and the companies is that while the government of Canada would like to be of assistance, we feel we are entitled to a much fuller explanation of the circumstances surrounding the oil sands deals than has been the case heretofore. As the hon. gentleman knows, the federal government has not been invited to participate in them and, indeed, has been on the outside looking in on these particular projects. We feel, before any public funds are made available, that we should have certain information from the companies and, if the government of Alberta is interested, from it as well, as to the nature of the problems there and about the kind of cost factors which are to be faced. At that point I think we will be in a better position to respond specifically and say whether we are taking an equity position or advancing a loan, or, indeed, determine what other financial or fiscal measures are relevant to the oil sands projects. Our first objective is to seek a better factual description of what the situation is.


ALBERTA OIL SANDS-POSSIBLE FEDERAL AID TO HOME OIL IN DEVELOPMENT OF LEASE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question. As Home Oil, the only Canadian-owned company with a lease in the Alberta oil sands, now says that it is experiencing great difficulty in obtaining sufficient capital to develop its lease, is the government prepared to negotiate with Home Oil, with a view to taking over the lease and developing it either through Petro-Can, once that is set up, or through Canada Development Corporation, or in partnership with Home Oil. I suggest that the Canadian people
Oral Questions
are far ahead of the government in being prepared to agree to public investment in this resource, in order to bring about its immediate development. Is the government prepared to move in that direction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to observe that the Canadian people may indeed be right in this regard. However, the federal government's position has been that we would not proceed with the oil sands development without the approval of the province which has jurisdiction over that resource. At the moment that approval is not forthcoming. I must say that the most critical situation relates to Syncrude, the project which is actually under construction and the one most likely to go into production. We must make sure that the rhythm of the construction is not interrupted, if that is at all possible. With regard to the Home Oil leases, I will be glad to discuss them with representatives of the company, possibly with the participation of and, again, subject to the approbation of the government of Alberta.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance to do with the policy he is pursuing and to do with consensus. Will the minister make a statement on motions indicating the government's position following the conclusion of the conference with the provincial ministers of finance and provincial treasurers. One is under the impression, from what the minister has said to the press, that these matters have been discussed. In view of the odd word thrown out by the minister which suggests that he is up to something, will the minister take the first opportunity and tell the House, on motions, what measures the government is proposing to establish consensus? I ask this in view of the 12 per cent inflation rate in this country. As far as I can see, the Minister of Finance is playing games with this House. Will he make a statement to this House and tell us his position on this matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the process I described quite fully to the House has reached the right stage, at the appropriate time the hon. member's suggestion will be taken into account.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister speaks about an appropriate time. Does the Minister of Finance stand in his place and say he explained this position with regard to consensus in the budget speech? I will challenge him if he says that. With the present rate of inflation, does the minister not think that this House and the people of this country are entitled to know what policy, if any, the government is pursuing?


John Napier Turner: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker.

December 11, 1974
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister says we are entitled, why does he not tell the House the government's policy? I admit he may want to keep certain cards with regard to the specific elements involved in restraint if he is going to have discussions with business and labour. Has the minister any reason for withholding from this House his policy? In a general way, what kind of consensus is he reaching? Is the minister just going to fool around while the rate of inflation continues to run rampant?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of course does not understand the process we are trying to achieve. There is no consensus in advance. We are trying to achieve consensus by first exploring with the various sectors of the economy what in their view a reasonable position would be in exercising a mutual restraint. I described the process in the budget speech. As it matures, I intend to keep the House fully informed because obviously the process cannot succeed unless the House is fully apprised of the situation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since Unemployment Insurance Commission agents seem to have authority, under the existing Unemployment Insurance Act, to disqualify a person receiving allowances because this person is unilingual and lives in an area where the working language is not his or hers, could the minister tell the House whether he will propose an amendment providing that the bona fide receiver be not disqualified because he or she speaks French or English only?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing this very interesting situation to my attention. This is the first I have heard of it. I would be grateful if the hon. member would supply details, such as names and dates. I will be pleased to look into it and do whatever I can to correct what seems to be an improper situation.


NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for reporting to this House for the National Archives. What possible reason is there for denying public access to material, documents or transcripts of the report of the Norris commission respecting the SIU which closed its testimony 10 years ago?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. I would like to reflect on it. I will be in touch with the hon. member.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. What instructions have been given to the deputy minister of labour to determine who is eligible to examine the material on the SIU from the Norris commission which is in the National Archives?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the instructions at the moment. I will be pleased to check into the matter and advise the hon. member.


FINANCE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of a recent ruling of the Department of National Revenue which prevents certain issues of Canada savings bonds as eligible investments for inclusion in Registered Retirement Savings Plans, is the minister considering amendments to the Income Tax Act to remedy this situation which might adversely affect a significant number of Canadians?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that as notice and consult with the Department of National Revenue.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and relates to the position taken by Air Canada at two recent Labour Relations Board hearings in Montreal in the case of M. J. Morrison vs Air Canada in which Air Canada refused to pay salaries of employees summoned before the Canada Labour Relations Board in violation of the internal regulations of Air Canada which require payment of salary to employees absent from work because they have been subpoenaed to court. Will the minister undertake to make representations to the president of Air Canada concerning this discriminatory attitude on the part of Air Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take up this matter with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and his officials to find out what this is all about. I will pursue the matter to the best of my ability.
December 11, 1974


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN DISPUTE WITH FINANCE BRANCH EMPLOYEES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I will direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Due to the walk-out of employees at the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg last week, which is the second occasion since the 81 day strike last year due to Air Canada's repeated delays in fulfilling their 1973 contract with regard to job ratings, will the minister personally intervene to settle the labour-management relationship at Air Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member's question is along the same lines as the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. They both concern the same area with regard to making the services of my department available. My answer is yes, I will make them available. I will look into this whole area to see what it is about. If we can be helpful, we certainly will.


A. Daniel McKenzie: In the interest of air safety, will the minister investigate whether flight performance quality control recording and billing and collecting procedures are being carried out during the labour problems at Air Canada's finance branch in Winnipeg?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, from the sound of the question, this seems to be more appropriately the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Transport. I will undertake on his behalf to look into the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 6, consideration in committee of Bill C-40, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carle-ton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 1-
The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether there is not still outstanding the point raised by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary when Your Honour was in the chair with regard to the form of the ways and means motion and the wording of items 10 and 11 in the schedule with respect to naval vessels. Is Your Honour prepared to give a ruling on that matter, or do you wish to hear argument on it? The point itself had not been argued. My colleague raised the question and the Chair took it under advisement, but I think the point is sufficiently important that we settle it.
Excise
I think Your Honour has had access to the debates that took place on a similar matter when the House was discussing Bill C-259 in September of 1971. I am quite prepared to come to any accommodation with the Minister of Finance regarding amendment of the ways and means motion. This is one of those points of procedure that has crept in. I think the practice that was adopted in 1971 was a dangerous one; in my opinion, it unduly restricted the government as it has on this particular occasion. But if you conform with the regulations, there is no way that the government is entitled to bring in a bill based upon a ways and means motion.
The decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux was that if a ways and means motion was to spell out every word, every comma, and you had to cross every "t", then it should conform. My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre supported my proposition at the time and it was agreed that appropriate steps should be taken to tidy the matter up. We can agree, in the interval, that this is a point the procedure committee will have to take up, and perhaps the government will have to mend its ways regarding the format of its ways and means motions. In any event, that is the point which has been raised, and I am sorry I argued it before Your Honour while you were acting as Chairman. It should have been argued before you while you were in the Chair as Mr. Speaker, because that is where the point at issue was first raised, and quite properly so.


John Napier Turner: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the flexible attitude adopted by the hon. member for Edmonton West. We are prepared to argue the point now, or when we get to the appropriate clause. I agree with the hon. gentleman that he has made the point early enough to argue it. I also appreciate his position that, depending on the ruling of the Chair, we can take whatever steps are necessary to put the matter right, if the Chair should so rule. This is an important point of order that this particular parliament should consider, and I am prepared to argue it at any time.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I think the hon. member for Edmonton West raised a very important point of order to the mind of the Chair during consideration of the bill on second reading. In my opinion, that was not the time to solve the problem and I thought it might have been better to raise it at the outset of the debate. In any event, I think the committee is faced with a difficulty at this time and I am ready to listen to argument. The committee itself will, of course, have to make a decision as to the way to proceed; otherwise the Chair will have to rule as to the validity of the point of order. I invite the hon. member to make his point, and the minister has stated he is ready to make a contribution.
Mb. Lambert (Edmonton West): With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I find it a little difficult to argue this point with you in the chair as Chairman. It is a second reading matter and Mr. Speaker should be in the chair. There is the point that if the ruling should go against us, it can always be appealed when you are in your present position, whereas if you are in the position you were in at the time I raised it there can be no appeal. But be that as it may, with the greatest respect, the raising of a point of

December 11, 1974
Excise
order concerning the admissibility of a bill need not be limited to the very beginning of the discussion on the bill. This is not a question of privilege, but a point of order. A point of order can be raised at any time during the study of a bill prior to the vote thereon.
My colleague raised the point on second reading and I insisted it be raised at that time. If it had been left until the clause was studied, we would have been faced, quite rightly, with the proposition that we had voted for the bill in that form and therefore could not raise the present point of order as to its form. I should like to refer you to the debate that took place on September 13-


John Napier Turner: Should we have the Speaker in the chair?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise and report progress so we can hear argument on this particular point.


John Napier Turner: We would agree with that, Mr. Chairman, if there is unanimous consent, so the point can be taken before the Chair.


Mr. Nystrom:: We would agree to that as well, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: I was about to suggest to the hon. member that the question be raised with Mr. Speaker in the chair, and there seems to be unanimous consent to that. Does the committee agree that I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I trust that I can be brief in that this matter was raised by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) last week. This matter has reference to the wording of the bill in paragraph No. 11 dealing with boats. The ways and means resolution which I have before me has a different reference and I would draw to your attention page 219, paragraph 11, which reads:
Boats, other than naval vessels, designed to be propelled primarily by motors exceeding 20 horsepower-
The bill, at page 11, paragraph 11, reads:
Boats, other than boats purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for use exclusively by the Government of Canada.
In other words, naval vessels are being equated with boats other than those purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for the exclusive use of the Government of Canada. I suggest that this is a fundamental departure and disturbs the ways and means motion. If it is within the power of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), after we have adopted the ways and means motion, to bring in a bill based on the provisions in the ways and means motions in different general terms, then it is open to all members of the House to bring in amendments which would disturb the ways and means motion. I do not think the minister would contend that it is within

his power or within my power to bring in such an amendment under the authority of Standing Order 60(11) after the approval of the budget resolution in general terms.
I would refer Your Honour to pages 7750 to 7755, inclusive, of Hansard for September 13, 1971. At that time I raised and argued a point of order. I was supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and opposed by the Minister of Finance and, with the greatest respect, Your Honour. I would be very careful to draw your attention to the fact that you indicated at the time the argument was taking place that the bill in respect of which I raised my point of order contained a relieving provision and did not impose a tax. However, the provision which at this time we suggest is out of order is one that imposes a tax and is, therefore, totally different. Therefore, the case is distinguishable from the one Your Honour argued when you opposed my point of order in September, 1971.
There is no doubt that Mr. Speaker agreed with me in principle. He directed that the parties in question should come to some conclusion in view of the custom of the House of specifying in great detail, with commas, crossing of "t's", and so on, the ways and means motion. He agreed that there was an inherent danger in a bill which did not follow, in similar terms, the ways and means motion.
The same situation has arisen again, I think quite improperly. I agree with Mr. Speaker of the day that the ways and means motion in general terms should be used to allow the flexibility perhaps required as between the drafting of the ways and means motion and the drafting of the bill itself. There is no way I can condone what has happened in respect of this motion, because if the minister can amend the ways and means motion by the bill which he presents, then it is open to any hon. member of this House to bring in amendments that would disturb the ways and means motion. While we might like to do so, I do not think that would conform with the principle we have been arguing. I accept that stricture in so far as members are concerned.
Therefore, I am quite prepared to co-operate with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and his officials in agreeing, without any delay whatever, that the appropriate wording will be made to amend the ways and means motions. It should be corrected so as to conform with the bill, if the bill is what the minister wants; unless, of course, he intends to continue to make this exception in respect of naval vessels and say that any power boat in excess of 20 horsepower shall be subject to sales tax if bought by the Crown. I say this on the basis that we be directed to get together, bring in the amendment and then carry on with the study of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In clarification, may I say that the hon. member is addressing himself to the possibility of an understanding with the minister in respect of an amendment to the ways and means motion, recognizing that it is probably the desire to amend the ways and means motion in order to conform with the bill, as opposed to doing the reverse, which is to amend the bill to conform with the ways and means motion which might be done in committee, I presume.
December 11, 1974


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, it would have to be done that way. While we could amend the bill to conform with the ways and means motion, I hardly think that is the desire of the government. The wording used in the ways and means motion is not the most felicitous. It is in order to tidy up. I would also make the point that this is one of the areas in which I think Your Honour should draw to the attention of the procedure and organization committee the fact that it should pay particular attention to this matter and make a recommendation to the House.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I last argued this particular point with the Minister of Justice, ably supported by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. I refer Your Honour to the language that was used in the argument at that time, and then, of course, to the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. There is no point in my going over the depth of those arguments because they are before you, except that I would like to summarize them and then distinguish, if I might, the situation which I submit is now before the Chair from the one that was before Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, if Your Honour should find difficulty in reversing that earlier ruling. I submit the situation is distinguishable, in any event. I do not want to find myself seduced by the flexibility of my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who says that even if the government were to lose on this submission to the Chair, he is flexible enough to allow the ways and means motion to be amended. I appreciate that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This puts me back to square one.


John Napier Turner: I submit that the point is important enough to argue before Your Honour in parliament. It may be that the ways and means motion would have to be amended, in which case I would submit, as you have already suggested, that we would have to come back from committee to the Chair in order to have it amended by unanimous consent.
The government's argument here is that the Standing Order to which the hon. gentleman referred really sustains the proposition that the notice of ways and means establishes the pith and substance of a tax measure with regard to the maximum rate and incidence of the proposed tax. In other words, relieving provisions are permitted either in the drafting of the bill or in amendments before the committee of the whole so long as they do not extend the ambit of the ways and means motion. Obviously, a ways and means motion is drafted in narrative, descriptive form. A bill is more precise; there is usually a change in language. There is a change in precision between the ways and means motion and the far more voluminous and precise nature of the bill based upon it.
In any event, if the change of language is a change of substance which is relieving in nature, it covers less ambit than the ways and means motion, and I submit that it is permissible. That is the first distinguishing point that I draw to Your Honour's attention from the facts which resulted in the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on September 13, 1971. The bill before the committee is relieving, compared to the ways and means motion. The motion excluded naval vessels from tax. The bill excludes naval
Excise .
vessels owned by the Canadian government from tax. That is a wider exclusion. Therefore, it is relieving in nature and it provides a distinct element for Your Honour should you wish to base your judgment upon it.
You should note, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Speaker Lamoureux justified his ruling in 1971 by referring to the fact that the notice of ways and means in question had been in the form of a draft bill. It was the final effort on tax reform which began with the Carter commission. It was a draft bill which was referred to the committee and, of course, discussed simultaneously in the other place. There was not a ways and means motion preceding the actual bill; there was a draft bill which took the form of a ways and means motion.
In other words, a ruling based on that particular set of circumstances would be comparing one bill to another, or the precision of a bill against the precision of the bill finally before the committee. Here, Your Honour is asked to compare the more descriptive language in a ways and means motion with the more precise language of a bill. I suggest that is a second distinguishing feature upon which Your Honour can rely, should you so decide. There is a clear implication that when, as in the case now before parliament, the notice of ways and means is not in the form of a draft bill, greater scope for amendment is provided. If Your Honour should so decide, I submit that you have more liberty than had Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in the earlier case.
A further point is this: if it is decided by Your Honour that it should become a precedent for this parliament that a tax bill based on a ways and means motion must be identical, must be so precisely similar as to almost repeat the language of the ways and means motion, then there is virtually no scope for amendment either by the government, should debate convince it that amendment is in the best interests of the country, or by the opposition if an amendment should be proposed of a relieving nature.
Obviously, one would accept the proposition that no amendment could be proposed on the other side that would add to the imbalance of ways and means, even of a relieving nature. But if the ruling should be that the bill has to remain within the precise language of the ways and means motion, rather than under its general pith and substance, then there would be no flexibility left for the opposition side of the committee, and certainly no flexibility left on the government side should we, as a result of further debate, decide to make an amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is extending the exemption.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not object if the hon. member wishes to rise later on the same point, but I am in full flight now. I even have the interests of the hon. member in mind, so I do not want to hesitate. Clearly, one can see the situation the committee of the whole would be in if this were the case. Surely, the precedents of the House show that tax bills frequently have been amended when such amendments have not raised the rate or increased the incidence of the particular tax. Thus, one comes to the converse proposition, that what the committee of the whole can do to a bill surely

December 11, 1974
Excise
can be done by the government in drafting the bill. Otherwise there is no flexibility on either side of the House.
I might introduce three subsidiary arguments. I really base my submission before Your Honour on what I have already said, but there are three subsidiary arguments which you might like to entertain. The first is that the text of the notice of ways and means does not apply any longer. The bill has been read a second time and referred to the committee of the whole. All that the committee has before it is the bill. Amendments that are relevant may be made, provided they do not raise the rate or the incidence of the tax and thereby infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown or imbalance ways and means.
What governs relevance is the bill itself as represented to the committee. The only bearing on the question of the ways and means procedure is the procedure which the House has developed to maintain the Crown's financial initiative. The only purpose of a ways and means motion preceding a tax bill is to preserve the initiative of the Crown to tax, to change the ways and means of the country and add a budgetary burden upon the people. It is because of this that notice of ways and means has been a procedure of this House. Second, I might say that the original point of order, raised, as it was, on second reading might have been raised too late even at that stage. It should have been raised before I was permitted to propose the motion for second reading. It was not raised until after that motion had been placed before the House.
My third argument is that the committee be entitled to amend the bill to match the ways and means motion, but the chairman has no authority to order that this amendment be made: his authority is defined in the committee's reference, not with reference to the ways and means motion. In any event, the question is in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and you will determine what flexibility will be allowed in the discussion of tax measures.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the discussion goes any further, is there any disagreement on the point that was not mentioned, that is, the interpretation of the term "naval" in the bill? Is there any disagreement that "naval vessels" means vessels in the navy of Her Majesty? That is a relevant point. The bill does not refer to vessels that might be in the merchant navy, outside of Her Majesty's forces. I should like to know whether there is agreement, or disagreement on that point because it may become material.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Your Honour has come right to the nub regarding whether there is an amendment of substance. I agree with the minister. He made the point that there is no difficulty with flexibility, in changing the wording, so long as the tax is not changed. My point is that this change goes beyond the use of grammar. I come back to the question, what are naval vessels: are they the equivalent of what is provided for in the bill? Naval vessels are other than boats purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for use exclusively by the Government of Canada. The government can buy 25-foot sloops for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or for the Department of Transport.


John Napier Turner: The opposition is more of an authority on naval vessels because it looks at its navel far more often.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Watch your spelling, John.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Also, power boats can be purchased by the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and they are to be used exclusively by the Government of Canada. They are not naval vessels by any stretch of the imagination; they are any type of vessel. A naval vessel is one that is understood to belong in a navy, and a navy is for a specific purpose. Therefore, I submit that notwithstanding the use of naval destroyers for fishery patrol vessels at present, that is not their purpose and to that extent, if it is ruled that such an amendment is possible, I would say that it is open to my colleagues to introduce amendments of a relieving nature.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there serious disagreement about that? I want to understand this quite clearly. I might say at this point that the importance of the point in respect of this fundamental procedure of parliament would cause me to give this matter extended consideration in the hope that the committee or the House may be able otherwise to occupy itself in progressing with the study of the bill. If I understand the point correctly, it seems that the exception that is proposed in the bill encompasses a wider class of vessel than the exception proposed in the ways and means motion. I t would seem, to me, to say that the bill therefore proposes less in the way of tax than is proposed in the ways and means motion, which would support the primary argument of the minister. I want to be clear on this.


John Napier Turner: May I say, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that you have seized it perfectly. I submitted that the first argument was that the bill was relieving in comparison with the ways and means motion which excludes tax from naval vessels. The bill excludes from tax boats owned by the Canadian government. The dictionary definition of "naval vessel" is "a government warship," but a boat owned by Canada surely includes government warships plus any other type of boat owned by the government. So that by widening the exclusion we are extending the relief.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no further contributions to the discussion, I propose to reserve my decision. My only concern is whether or not we are able, without inconvenience, to return to the committee study and go on with other clauses. I will be in a position to bring forth a ruling on this very important question tomorrow afternoon.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, if I may interject at this stage. I think we should know, before we go back to committee of the whole, the intention of the government. Nowhere else, so far as I am aware, is the government planning to buy naval vessels, much as we would like to see it. But if it is the intention of the government to exclude naval vessels and other vessels for the Department of the Environment or the Department of Fisheries, I think it should be made
December 11, 1974

clear and unequivocal before we proceed with the debate. I intend to raise certain questions on this item, but they would be pointless unless that is made quite clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Presumably those would be precisely the kind of questions that could be put to the minister during the committee stage of the bill, even pending a decision on this clause. I have no way of knowing whether the committee is disposed to continue discussion of the clause or go on to other clauses. That is a decision the committee will have to take while I consider the point of order. If there are no other contributions, I will leave the chair for the House to resume committee stage of the bill.
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-40, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act- Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 1-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to ask the minister a question. On Friday a number of us raised a whole series of possible amendments regarding the transport tax in the north on, for example, pleasure boats, small boats, motorcycles, and so on. I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to introduce some amendments in those areas. I know from private conversations that members on all sides of the House would agree to some changes. This is not a political question.


John Napier Turner: I have taken note of the comments made on second reading. Perhaps a more appropriate time to deal with them would be when we get to the particular clauses. I will be glad to address myself to those points at that time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My point was to facilitate the activities of the committee and to ascertain whether we might expect amendments in some of those areas. If the government is preparing them, it would save us some work.


John Napier Turner: I would prefer to wait for the particular clauses. That is the procedure I have followed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On clause 1, Mr. Chairman, I raise the whole question of the air transportation tax. The form of this bill is different from the amendments first introduced to the Excise Tax Act with regard to the air transportation tax. There were some stated exemptions on classes of aircraft by weight and category. 1 should like to get a clear indication from the minister as to how he intends to proceed in order to relieve the burden of this tax on the frontier areas. I know he intends to do so.


John Napier Turner: I think that is a satisfactory procedure, Mr. Chairman. We agreed that clause 1 would be considered to be a definition clause and we could carry on a general discussion at this stage before we got into the other clauses. Perhaps hon. members would like to follow that procedure.
We are really talking about clause 7 here, which is paragraph 18(c) of the act, relating to regulations. The amendment to subparagraph (c) is consequential to the amendment proposed in clause 1, which is the definition of
Excise
"certified air carrier." What the hon. gentleman is putting to me is the question, what are the exemptions? New paragraph 18(c) provides regulatory authority to exclude certain classes of air carrier from the air transportation tax. This provision will provide regulatory authority to exclude many of the air transportation services provided in the north and remote areas if such services require the use of aircraft below a specified weight.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am questioning this because if we look at the explanatory notes, the definition of "air carrier" as previously set out in the act indicated-I will not go over the first three lines-beginning at the fourth line:
... 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) ...
We want to know whether it is going to mean the same thing now.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. gentleman some advice that I got from the Department of Transport on the proposed regulations. The current amendment being proposed for the air transportation tax legislation will permit taxing all classes of service and weight groupings under the act, but will permit exemptions by regulation. That is what paragraph 18(c) will give. The following exemptions are in the regulations already: all aircraft at regular, specific points in classes 2 and 9-2, all aircraft under 18,000 pounds; classes 3 and 9-3, at regular, specific points, all aircraft under 18,000 pounds; classes 4 and 9-4, charters, all aircraft under 18,000 pounds; classes 5 and 9-5, contract service. This includes all area aircraft under contract service. Class 6, flying clubs, all aircraft of flying clubs; class 7, special services, all aircraft. The inclusion of classes 2, 9-2, 3 and 9-3 for aircraft under 18,000 pounds in the group to be exempt from tax was on the basis of consultation with the industry and other departments. As a matter of fact, I am advised that these exemptions go beyond the requests of the air transport associations and that they are likely to be satisfied.
The first type of exemption, then, is based upon aircraft weight. There is a second type of exemption for geographic areas, for example the north. There is no general exemption by geographic area, specifically the north or other relatively remote or undeveloped areas. The introduction of the $5 ceiling on the percentage tax will provide greatest relief on the longer-haul routes and in areas where air travel costs are higher, particularly the north. In other words, the $5 limit is of particular benefit to the north. The exemptions granted on the basis of aircraft weight will have the greatest effect in the north. On January 31, 1974, there were 355 aircraft registered in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and only 19 of these were over
18,000	pounds and, thus, possibly subject to tax. So the burden is not heavy on northern Canada, Mr. Chairman.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks regarding Bill C-40 and the taxation of transportation, specifically vehicles and outboard motors. I think it would be of benefit to the people in the Northwest Territories and the northern parts of certain provinces where the hunter, the trapper, the fisherman and prospector will
2170

December 11, 1974
Excise
probably be hit with some of this tax, if the government were to reconsider these provisions. I hope the government will entertain the idea of exempting people in these specific vocations, considering their use of motorized toboggans and outboard motors which are not used as pleasure vehicles but in order to make a living. I think it would be rather easy to administer such an exemption, because these people need licences to operate and so could prove their occupation if an exemption were written into the bill.
I am not completely satisfied that adding $5 for transportation will not hurt the northern operator. In the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, people travel by air because that is the only means of transportation. The weight of the aircraft used by people in the categories I have mentioned is usually under 12,500 pounds; indeed, the majority of these aircraft are in the 3,000 to 5,000 pound range. Any aircraft of 18,000 pounds and over is usually operated by a big company because the hunter, the trapper and the prospector as individuals cannot afford to charter them.
Another point that should be considered in the taxation of aircraft in the north is that if the taxes are used for making available facilities such as airstrips and airports, the people who charter small aircraft to conduct their business rarely use these facilities. Their landings are made mostly on lakes, rivers and sand bars. They do not make much use of airports; indeed, there are not many airports anyway. Such a tax would hit these people.
Another factor is that the high cost of fuel increases the cost of air charter. Even a Cessna 185, which is most often used by the people I have mentioned, weighs something like 3,500 pounds. I hope that the government will seriously consider exempting from this tax people in the vocations I have referred to. It would hit very hard the people in the northern parts of the provinces and those north of sixty. There are not too many people involved, and I think they deserve serious consideration.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, there is a need to assist or to subsidize air travel in the north and other remote areas, but it was considered better to do this by other means than tax exemptions. I would point out to the hon. member that in the area he represents, only 19 out of 355 aircraft would be affected. There is an extra fuel tax, or a 10 per cent surtax on boats, however. That tax will only apply when the sales tax applies. Commercial vehicles are exempt.


Donald W. Munro: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the discussion so far has been on clause 1 but, I understand that we have been discussing also, clause 21 on page 11 of the bill. May I ask, for clarification, if we are at this stage to comment on the various parts of the bill, or is the discussion to be restricted to clause 1? I ask this question as I wish to make some comments when we reach the appropriate clause.


Gérald Laniel: I wish to bring to the hon. member's attention that the Chair, not the minister, decides which clause is to be discussed. We are now discussing clause 1, the clause which I called for the sake of orderly discussion. We are following long established practice. Usually we discuss bills like this clause by clause unless the committee consents to some other kind of discussion. This is a specific clause, not a descriptive clause. I do not feel that the committee is disposed to allow hon. members to discuss in general all aspects of the taxation bill at this stage.


Donald W. Munro: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will wait.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Chairman, my question concerns the taxing of motor boats and outboard motors over a specific size. The minister mentioned that commercial vehicles will be exempt. The bill, as I read it, will not exempt such equipment bought by hunters, trappers and prospectors. Such people generally operate under a licence which permits them to hunt, trap, fish, and so on. The vehicles in which they move around do not come under the commercial category. These people use boats which are seemingly like pleasure craft. I wish some distinction could be made in this area. The bill should spell out the fact that such craft are to be exempt from excise tax.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, that is a matter of specific import and we will deal with it at the appropriate stage. The hon. member's request is specific, he has not raised a general question, and I would prefer to deal with it at the appropriate time.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, the way the discussion is going on, it seems that we could refer more specifically to motor boats of 20 HP or over. I had specific representations to make about some shipyards established in my constituency. I even want to bring in an amendment to that clause. Since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is willing to hear representations on section 21(2) (11), I will wait till then.


Mr. Brisco:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that you had ruled that we were to deal with the bill clause by clause. I do not think we have reached the clause referred to by the hon. member who just spoke. The hon. member was dealing with clause 21 and it is my impression that we are still dealing with clause 1. Perhaps I am wrong.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member is quite right. The hon. member who spoke previously said that he will make suggestions on clause 21, and then he sat down. I could not communicate what was said, although the hon. member did indicate that he will seek the floor when we reach the clause in which he is interested. At present we are on clause 1.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I should like to ask the minister some information on the reduction of the sales tax on building materials. Recently, in reply to a question I put to him in the House, the minister assured me that he would see to it that some supervision was exercised to see that the cut would be of direct benefit to new owners. I had pointed out that the

December 11, 1974

suppression of the 10 per cent sales tax on footwear and clothing has not necessarily been felt by the consumers. Perhaps today, at this stage, the minister might be able to explain how he can ensure that supervision-


Gérald Laniel: Order. I am very sorry but I must remind the hon. member that until now the committee has not given the Chair specific instructions on whether or not it should allow a general debate on clause 1. Therefore, in conformity with the rules, I must restrict the debate to the subject of clause 1 which deals with air transports affected by the tax. We have not yet reached the clause the hon. member is referring to.

Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Tax imposed.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 of Bill C-40 states that there shall be imposed, levied and collected an air transportation tax. The minister may wish to comment on the 5 per cent tax on air tickets sold in Canada for flights originating and terminating in the United States. I am also concerned about something mentioned by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. I suggest that the tax should not be imposed on tickets for journeys which originate and terminate in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. That might be the best way of resolving the difficulty of air travel in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I am talking about flights originating and terminating north of the sixtieth parallel.
I bring forward my suggestion because frequently aircraft are the only mode of transportation in the north. The proposed tax will impose a hardship on people residing north of the sixtieth parallel. For this reason I urge the minister to consider removing the 5 per cent tax from tickets for flights originating or terminating north of the sixtieth parallel. Residents of Kootenay West who live close to the United States border, and travel agents in my constituency approve the suggestion of the Minister of Transport-I hope the Minister of Finance agrees-that the tax should be removed from tickets for flights originating and terminating in the United States. Would the Minister of Finance comment on that suggestion?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this clause is to limit the tax to a ceiling of 5 per cent ad valorem. In addition, a $5 ceiling is also imposed. As I explained to the hon. member for Northwest Territories, that $5 limit will be of particular benefit on longer flights. It applies to the more remote areas of the country, particularly the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
On the other matter, when we get to clause 7 the hon. member will see that we have an amendment to paragraph 18(c) concerning the definition of "certified air carrier". As I said earlier to the hon. member for Edmonton West, this provision will provide regulatory authority to exclude from tax many of the air transportation services provided in the north and other remote areas if such areas require the use of aircraft below a specific weight, such as 18,000 pounds. The exercise will deal with a number of situations
Excise
including the one mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West; in other words, to avoid levying a Canadian tax on tickets purchased in Canada which are solely for air travel between two points in the United States, as currently provided for in the legislation. I can give the hon. member the undertaking that the legislation, if passed, will have that effect. I do that on behalf of the Minister of Transport. I will let him know I have made that undertaking.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 8-Tax on resale by licensed wholesaler operating duty-free sales outlet.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could give the committee a full explanation of the effect of the amendment under clause 8, particularly as it applies to resale by wholesalers who usually operate duty-free shops. This is the second portion of subsection (2.1).


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, these amendments, beginning with 8(2), together with the amendments proposed in clauses 9, 10, 11(2), 16, 17 and 22 which are all interrelated, would authorize the Minister of National Revenue, who administers this statute, to licence as licensed wholesalers persons proposing to operate dutyfree shops. As licensed wholesalers, such persons would be entitled to purchase and import goods for resale throughout their shops free of the taxes imposed by subsection 21(1) and sections 23, 24, 25 and 27 of the Excise Tax Act. Such goods would be exempt from tax if sold through a duty-free shop for export by the purchaser.
Goods purchased free of tax by a licensed wholesaler which are subsequently diverted for sale other than for export or for use by a licensed wholesaler, would become subject to tax in accordance with proposed subsection (2.1) set out in these amendments in sections 23, 24, 25 and 27. I know the hon. member's penchant for precision. I want to give it to him straight and with, all interrelated cases. In brief, what this does is extend some exemptions for duty-free shops at land border points that are now in force at airports.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Special excise tax on wines.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I know that several of my colleagues want to speak on this clause. I am just wondering about the purpose of imposing on Canadian wines a tax which will also apply to imported wines. Why the equal imposition in respect of both domestic wines and foreign wines? Many of our domestic wines are being hard hit by, shall we say, protectionist levies by various liquor control boards as between one province and another. I do not know why the minister wants to accentuate this situation.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member knows I could not discriminate by way of federal taxes between imported and domestic wines because that would infringe our obligations under GATT.
28626-3%

December 11, 1974
Excise


Mr. Whittaker:: What?


John Napier Turner: Yes, indeed. It would be preferential to a domestic as against a foreign product. We have to do it by tariff and we have to do it openly; we cannot do it by hidden subsidies, taxes or transportation charges. Really, the proposed increases are moderate in that they amount to roughly 3'A cents per 25-ounce bottle of wine containing less than 7 per cent alcohol and 6'A cents per 25-ounce bottle of wine containing more than 7 per cent alcohol. It is not a heavy burden. I am referring to clause 11. Yesterday this House was very involved in conflict of interest. I want to say to members present that the minister will be as burdened by this tax as most other members of this House.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister why he has picked on wine and not on cider or beer. The minister says it is a very small tax that he is imposing, but it is still 60 per cent higher than the present tax. Why is he doing it at this time, when the wine industry is in such serious economic straits? This, of course, goes back into the grape industry, the farming of grapes in Canada. Why is the minister just picking on the wine industry and not on cider or beer? With the present economic situation there is a real danger in imposing a tax like this, small as it is, on the wine industry. It encourages importers to import cheaper wines, which makes competition in the wine industry even more difficult.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this tax applies equally to imported and domestic wines. That is a fact. The foreign wine industry has from time to time questioned the policy of certain provincial liquor commissions as to their pricing policies. I have always been grateful that liquor has not been within federal jurisdiction so far as administration is concerned. Therefore, I can divest myself of that particular problem.
The government's decision not to increase the levy on cider and beer was based on the conclusion that the proposed increases relating to wines and spirits were moderate and that they would not create distortions in consumer preferences. The cider industry is a new industry in its developing stages, and not extending the tax is assisting this industry in becoming an important Canadian industry.
I should note, for the benefit of the committee, that wine traditionally receives very favourable tax treatment as opposed to beer and spirits. Perhaps I can give the committee the federal revenues per gallon of pure alcohol consumed as a beverage. On the basis of this post-budget, one gallon of pure alcohol is contained in 34 26-ounce bottles of fortified wine. The tax per gallon of that alcohol is $5.25 for fortified wine. One gallon of pure alcohol is contained in 51 26-ounce bottles of table wine. The tax per gallon of alcohol, on the basis of this budget, for table wine is $7.87. One gallon of pure alcohol is contained in 255 12-ounce bottles of beer. The tax per gallon of alcohol for beer is $9.40. One gallon of pure alcohol is contained in 16 25-ounce of distilled spirits. The tax per gallon of alcohol is $29.96. In summary, the tax per gallon of alcohol on fortified wine is $5.25; per gallon of alcohol for table wines

it is $7.87; for beer it is $9.40; and for distilled spirits, $29.96, on the basis of the post-budget. So there is still favourable treatment given to the wine industry.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Diversion of certain articles to non-exempt
use, sale, etc.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this is the old, shall I say, "tractor diverted from logging and farming use" clause, and there is an extension here for aircraft. If a motor vehicle or tractor was purchased for agricultural or logging purposes, there was a certain sales tax exemption for a period of five years. If a farm tractor was used for part of the summer to haul a sheep's foot packer on the highway for reward, then that caused certain problems. Or if it was used to pull a scraper on a road building contract, the same thing applied. I see the former Minister of Transport does not know what a sheep's foot packer is. I am sure he has seen these great circular things that are used for packing down.


John Napier Turner: I just think he is impressed that you were able to get it out twice in a row.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to know the reason for this extension of liability for tax on an aircraft. Presumably the aircraft was purchased free of excise tax for use for certain stated purposes. Its use is then diverted, either in the hands of the original owner or the hands of a subsequent owner, within a specified time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I suppose we would pick that up when the registry changed. That is how we would pick up the energy tax.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But why?


John Napier Turner: Because it is diverted from an exempted use to a non-exempted use.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What is the exempted use of an aircraft for sales tax purposes?


John Napier Turner: We are talking here about the energy tax. I apologize to the hon. member; we are talking about the transportation exemption, the exemption on transportation equipment. In other words, it exempts the sale of transportation equipment. We are talking about "aircraft used exclusively for the following classes of air service". These are aircraft purchased or imported without paying the tax. We are also talking about the regulations, scheduled regular, specific point, charter, flying clubs, commercial, specialty, international-scheduled, international regular specific point, international specific point, international charter. All come under the heading of "commercial air services". Now, if aircraft exempted from sales tax in this type of use are diverted to private, non-commercial use, then of course on their sale they would not be exempt from tax, or the tax would be recoverable.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, what I want to know is the type of aircraft concerned. The extension has to do with aircraft. This point has been argued time and time again in the past
December 11, 1974

in regard to motor vehicles and tractors. When it was first introduced I remember the limitations and problems of administration that it engendered so far as tractors were concerned. It greatly affected people who had logging camps, and also owner farmers, particularly those farmers who used their farm tractors for short periods to assist in road building and other purposes for reward. This clause now leaves them open to levy of a sales tax on the tractor retroactively, based upon the original purchase price, not the value as at the time the infraction takes place.
We are now bringing aircraft into this category. I should like to know what kind of aircraft are purchased free of sales tax the use of which may be diverted or partly diverted during the first five years, or which may be sold for a different use.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member a whole list, anything from, say, a Beechcraft to a Cessna, the type of aircraft used for charter use and which goes over Victoria harbour from the Bayshore Hotel on a regular charter service. If that aircraft was sold for private use, it would no longer be exempt but would be eligible for the special sales tax of 10 per cent, or the standard sales tax of 12 per cent. This diversion is a lot easier to administer than the problem we had with the tractors because you do have the registry of the aircraft.


Donald W. Munro: I understand that there is no intention of prorating this tax. It would be imposed at the time of importation on the original price of the imported product?


John Napier Turner: Yes. Otherwise you are into an evaluation problem of depreciation and everything else.


Donald W. Munro: Quite.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Madam Chairman, may I ask what is the intention of the minister in taxing a person who purchases an aircraft for private use? This is the guy who is going to get hit, the commercial operators such as flying clubs. Is the category of flight training included, or is such training exempt from the tax?


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, the hon. gentleman is dealing with two separate taxes. He is dealing with the general sales tax of 12 per cent and the high energy surtax of 10 per cent. We are exempting a whole list of aircraft for commercial use from the general sales tax, as I just listed them, and they include those for chartered flights and for all regular flights of aircraft for hire. Any aircraft exempt from the general sales tax under the budget provisions is also exempt from the high energy tax. However, if the aircraft was sold out of commercial use into private use, the exemption either for general sales tax or high energy tax would no longer apply and would be recovered at the time of the sale on a commercial basis.


Walter (Wally) Firth: The reason I asked the question is that it is important for people in the flying industry to understand this fully. An individual is paying to learn to fly in order to be in a position to get a job on a commercial basis. He
Excise
has an exemption in respect of the money paid for flying lessons. If you charge tax on flying clubs and in respect of certain people who purchase aircraft to learn how to fly, I do not think that is fair.


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, every flying club gets two types of exemption. First of all, the flying club planes are exempt from the general sales tax, and the flying club is also exempt from the high energy tax. In addition, the person who takes flying lessons can deduct his tuition fees from his income, so he gets a good break.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Articles partially exempted.


Mr. Wenman:: Madam Chairman, I believe in respect of this clause the minister said he would give consideration to built-in fireplaces. I wonder if he would now care to comment on that matter.


John Napier Turner: Yes, Madam Chairman. The reduced rate generally applies to materials that form a constituent part of the building. However, the government is prepared to review the question of providing a lower rate for free-standing fireplaces. Provision for a lower rate can be provided by regulation of the governor in council under section 24(1) of the schedule to the Excise Tax Act. We will take a look at it, on the basis of the argument the hon. member made on second reading, to see what we can do. We have the authority to do it, and we will take the argument into consideration.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I want to thank the minister for that expression of opinion and I accept his undertaking. I might just add that free-standing fireplaces are hardly moveable items in buildings any more. They are very definitely part of the construction of the building.


John Napier Turner: Just so the hon. member does not misunderstand me, let me say that I will take his argument into consideration. We have the authority to provide a lower rate, so he need not expect this to be in the legislation. We will look at his argument.


Roch La Salle: Madam Chairman, I shall ask my question once more since we are now studying the clause in question. Earlier, I asked the minister what the review board would do, and what action the department will take to ensure that the reduction of the tax on building materials will benefit the consumers.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, this can be related to the experience that we had with children's clothing and footwear, when we established a monitoring system administered by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which system showed a considerable reduction during the first six months, which was subsequently swallowed up by inflation.
As for the exemption from the sales tax granted in last year's budget for clothing and footwear in general, instead of only for children, which was finally approved on July 16, it is still too early to see concrete results, but my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

December 11, 1974
Excise
Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), is now making a total review of the matter. The results of his review are not yet known. The minister will present a report to the House, presumably after New Year's Day. I cannot prejudge the situation.
As for the reduction from 11 or 12 per cent to 5 per cent for building materials, I have always refused either to maintain it or to eliminate it. Because the pressures exerted by demand were previously too strong, I had the impression that this tax would not be reflected in the price paid by the consumer, the home owner or the purchaser of a new home.
Now the forces have been turned around. Since the demand is now very low, we must encourage building. And I am under the impression that after turning around of the economic forces, the tax reduction will be reflected in the price of these materials. Nevertheless, I have asked my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (M. Danson), who is responsible for housing, to establish a monitoring system. He will do so, and I must admit, Madam Chairman, that because of the great diversity of these materials, it will be very difficult to establish strict monitoring, except for the most important materials.
This is the present situation, and I believe that the question was very relevant.


Mr. Gilbert:: Madam Chairman, my question is similar to the previous question regarding sales tax on building materials. I would ask the minister, who is going to monitor the sales tax? Suppose it can be shown that no benefit has been passed on to the purchaser, what steps will the minister take to adjust the situation? I recall the removal of sales tax on drugs and what happened following that. The industry absorbed the benefit rather than passing it on to the consumers, and I greatly fear that this will happen in respect of this exemption on building materials.
We must also consider the matter of inflation. It will be very easy for people in the construction industry to say that prices have gone up and they are unable to pass on the benefits of the reduced sales tax. How is the minister going to monitor this and what does he intend to do if this reduction does not result in the desired benefit to the consumer?


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, the hon. gentleman feels that sales tax is a regressive tax-I have heard him speak before on this-because it adds a cost factor that affects the low income consumer more than the high income consumer, and I agree that it does. We have to assume that when eliminating the tax it will have the same effect, or the effect of eliminating the difference. This is particularly true in the building trade where the demand is slack and the supplier of building materials, be it lumber or other materials, is looking for markets.
The situation is going to be monitored. This will be a difficult thing to do, but it will be monitored by the department of my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I would rather have him handle this question. He will have a committee composed of representatives from industry and, hopefully, from labour and from the department to look at the situation. The hon. member asks what will happen if the benefits are not passed on.

Publicity will be directed at those not passing on the benefits, and I hope that will have a salutary effect. If there is collusion, then the combines and competition acts are available. If there is profiteering, then I would hope the House would bring legislation into effect to take care of that. Short of that, if we are relying on competitive forces, hopefully they will play a part. There is legislation now available to make sure they are in place. We will look at the profiteering section and rely on the very slack market on the financial side.


Mr. Patterson:: Madam Chairman, when this measure was before us on second reading, unfortunately I was unable to be here because I was overseas with a delegation. I had planned to make a number of comments with respect to the various matters contained in the bill. However, we are now dealing with the reduction of the sales tax on building materials and I wish to say we certainly appreciate the decision that was made in this regard. However, I would point out that we would have been much happier had the minister decided to eliminate completely the building materials tax rather than merely reduce it.
I notice, in checking Hansard, that in October the hon. member for Abitibi asked the Prime Minister whether any action would be taken in respect of the sales tax. The response of the Prime Minister was that no consideration had been given to it. Today the minister has stated that in the past he felt it was not possible to remove the sales tax because the pressure probably would be greater. Now, however, the situation has changed. I say to the minister that in view of the fact that he has gone this far, he might just as well have gone the rest of the way and eliminated the sales tax completely.
We all know the housing situation that exists today, and we recognize that inflationary trends are continuing. We also know that the government has not been able to bring in any adequate measures to deal with inflation. In view of this, I believe we could at least assist the people of Canada in keeping up, in some respects, with spiralling inflation by the removal of the sales tax on building materials. This would bring about a reduction in the cost of housing.
We realize that the needs of the average citizen are mainly in the realms of housing, food and clothing. It would seem to me, looking at the whole problem, that we should have been able to convince the minister that instead of merely reducing the sales tax he should have removed it completely. This would have enabled many Canadians to secure the housing they so desperately need. It would also have assisted in the provision of jobs. We know about the lumber situation in the province of British Columbia, where many people are being laid off. This is an industry that is essential to the economy of British Columbia, and if it is essential to the economy of British Columbia it is also essential to the whole Canadian economy. I would simply ask the minister to remove the sales tax because of the beneficial effect it would have right across this nation.


Mr. Oberle:: Madam Chairman, I should like to make a comment which may come as a surprise to my colleague
December 11, 1974

from British Columbia because it is not my role to defend the minister in respect of anything like this. My colleague spoke about the benefits this measure would have in increasing the job capacity of Canada. I am quite sure the minister had in mind the idea that by not removing the sales tax entirely, the same bureaucracy would exist to administer the 5 per cent tax as existed to administer the 12 per cent tax. If the tax were eliminated completely, the minister probably thought that quite a number of people would be out of work. I am sure the minister had that in mind, and for that reason did not remove the sales tax entirely. I wish he had brought it down to 1 per cent and been fair to public servants.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Chairman, for the record I should like to comment on the subject of building materials. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister statements made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with regard to the tax on building materials. If I recall correctly, I believe the minister stated, when it was suggested that the building material tax be removed to assist the depressed lumber industry in British Columbia, that really this was not a worth while exercise because the United States received two-thirds of our lumber, that one-third remained in Canada and that of the one-third that remained in Canada only a third was used for the construction of homes.
I believe the fact that there is now a reduction in the tax makes the argument presented by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs rather weak. I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River with regard to the maintenance of the bureaucracy. There is no question that if the tax were totally removed, there would be a reduction in the cost of the operation of government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And it could be put somewhere else.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Yes, but apparently that is not the name of the game. I wonder whether the minister would consider a one-time rebate of the tax differential on the tax paid by building materials suppliers. I notice the minister is not in the chamber. Perhaps he would answer that question when he returns.
I wish to reinforce the arguments and remarks presented by other members on this side of the House and ask, what is the benefit to Canadians of maintaining this tax, other than any benefit which might accrue to some public servants? If the government had really wanted to do something to stimulate the housing industry and to the forest industry of British Columbia and other provinces, it would have removed completely the tax on building materials which we on this side have been asking for a number of years. We said in 1972 that our party would remove it, and we said it again in 1974. Now the government has decided to go a rather poor half way. I really think the government should reconsider its action.


Mr. Cullen:: First of all, Madam Chairman, I should like to say that the minister was called to a very important phone call and will be back shortly. Once again we have the same representations from the other side in respect of the way in which the government has gone part way.
Excise
What we have endeavoured to do in reducing the tax is not merely to encourage house building but also to exercise judgment in respect of this particular tax. Had we reduced it down to the zero figure it would have meant a further revenue loss of $380 million. We already have lost $450 million to the federal treasury. We have gone a long way toward meeting the requirements. With regard to the onetime rebate, I do not see that taking place. The minister is not here, but I am sure it will not take place. I can see it as an administrative nightmare. It would be too complicated. In the other areas it was easy to do it, but in this area I cannot foresee it taking place.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Chairman, I would like very briefly to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen), since he just stated that the full abolition of the sales tax on building materials would result in a loss of $380 million for the federal treasury, what will be the loss resulting from the tax cut?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The figure that I gave for the reduction was $450 million. If we took off an additional amount, it would be an additional $380 million.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The parliamentary secretary suggested that there would be a further loss to the government of some $300 million if they took the building materials tax off altogether. In the minister's estimates for the coming year, when he estimates the inflation factor plus the reduction, does he anticipate, even at the low rate of return of the sales tax, at least an amount equal to last year's or more? Is there an estimate in this range as to the amount of sales tax on building or other materials? In other words, the sales tax, due to inflation, will probably not be any less this year than last year, even with the reduction; is that correct?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Once again, it is an estimate that is made. The figures are pretty close. The hon. member indicates that as a result of inflation we may not be losing quite that amount. But we have to compare one orange with another orange. The other figure, whereby we would have lost $450 million, might also have been increased as a result of the inflation factor. So you have to compare $380 million to $450 million.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Chairman, the question raised by my colleague is interesting and timely. The Department of Finance knows the rate of inflation. The Department of Finance also knows the housing stock and the number of housing starts. The Department of Finance knows the revenues derived for every previous fiscal year from the sales tax on building materials.
Therefore, what are the specific estimates of the Department of Finance since this did not come out of thin air and all of a sudden there is a tax cut on building materials which we quite welcome? The government seems to suggest this is very good news but we would like to know how it will recover its money, in view of the inflationary

December 11, 1974
Excise
pressures, so we will know the specific impact of that tax reduction on building materials.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have tried to indicate to the hon. member that we are dealing with figures which we know at this time, now that the budget is brought down, and the amount of revenue we would have received had the sales tax on construction and building materials remained. Using that figure, we make the reduction. In fact, those are the figures. I do not think the Department of Finance should be in the position of having to predict what the rate of inflation may be.


John Gilbert: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary heard the speech made by one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Windsor West, last Friday. He said that the focus with regard to the reduction of the sales tax should be put on residential construction and, more particularly, on construction of houses for moderate and low income people. Here we see the sales tax applying to all types of construction-luxury homes, apartment and office buildings, etc. Would the parliamentary secretary not use his persuasive powers on the Minister of Finance to bring about a change of impact so that the sales tax may be taken off completely with regard to moderate and low priced housing? That should be the intention. But here the opposite is taking place. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary would not agree with it and would probably want to increase housing for people with moderate and low incomes.
The net effect of this clause, according to the hon. member for Windsor West-and I certainly agree with him-will be to benefit mainly people who build luxury homes, apartment and office buildings, and very little will apply to people with moderate and low incomes. I am really surprised that the parliamentary secretary has not taken steps to persuade the minister to make this change. I would like to hear what he has to say on this.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I think that probably the minister has gone as far as he has, due, in part, to some of the representations I have made. But I must say that what we are looking at here is not house construction alone but the construction industry in total. The fact is that the construction industry also needs help. I might remind the hon. member, who from time to time has indicated to me that he represents the workingman, that there are many workingmen in the construction trades who will derive a benefit as a result of this clause. So the impact is not on housing alone but on the construction industry as a whole.


John Gilbert: Madam Chairman, I am really surprised at the answer of the parliamentary secretary. He is saying that the main benefit should go to builders of luxury homes and apartment and office buildings, and that it may in some way help ordinary folk and stimulate the industry. If there is any stimulation needed, it is needed in the housing industry for the moderate and low income people. If you were to calculate the amount of sales tax which would apply, and give to the people in that area tax credits on the purchases of houses, then the purpose would be achieved and there would be tremendous stimulation in the housing industry. But for the parliamentary secretary
[Mr. Fortin.)
to say that the workingman will derive some benefit because of stimulation in the construction industry seems to me to be a very weak argument.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member chooses to twist my words as he sees fit. He suffers from the usual problem of tunnel vision and does not look at the other measures to help home buyers.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
On clause 18-Refund on goods for use in water distribution, sewerage or drainage systems.


George H. Whittaker: I asked a question earlier about the word "municipality" which appears in this clause, to help the parliamentary secretary who is filling in at the moment for the minister. I would point out that in British Columbia there is a considerable amount of unorganized territory. We have regional districts and fire districts which fall under the Water Act. They serve in the same manner as municipalities, but they do not have the same jurisdiction. They are authorities in their own right and they serve the people in the same way as the municipalities.
We have a problem now because the excise tax is being charged, in fire districts, on firefighting equipment. This happened last October in the Winfield fire district which was assessed $3,600. In this clause the word "municipality" is used, and I can foresee regional districts and organizations which fall under the Water Act wanting to use this clause to take over water distribution, sewerage and drainage systems.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Chairman, we are certainly aware of the situation the hon. member has mentioned. I might say that British Columbia is not alone here; northern Ontario and many other areas have the same kind of operation. I think it is fair to point out that irrigation districts are not considered to be municipalities under the Excise Tax Act, which provides in section 2(1) that the governor in council may determine that an incorporated local authority is a municipality for the purpose of the act.
Irrigation districts are to be considered as municipalities for the purposes of the Excise Tax Act where they are incorporated, and they qualify for sales tax relief in the same fashion as municipalities. There is a kind of flexibility provided under the regulations for the governor in council, rather than building it into the rigidity of that section.


George H. Whittaker: This comes as a surprise to me, Madam Chairman. Actually, we are not talking about irrigation districts but about a fire protection district that is incorporated under the Water Act, which is a taxing authority in its own right. In British Columbia we have quite a few regional districts in lieu of municipalities and they have not really any connection with municipalities. We also still have a lot of the unorganized territory which we had before regional districts were formed.
If what the parliamentary secretary says is true, I cannot understand why this excise tax is being and has
December 11, 1974

been, assessed in respect of fire protection districts in British Columbia which are incorporated under the Water Act. There are quite a few instances of this. The interpretation has been that they are not municipalities and therefore the excise tax is assessed. I see there is something in the legislation about quasi-municipalities, but I am sure they will not qualify either. Unless the act is properly worded, these bodies will be assessed. This is discrimination and it is very unfair, Madam Chairman.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Chairman, I was simply pointing to the irrigation districts as an example of what the hon. member said had taken place. He is now citing cases where it has not. It seems to me that he might have an argument with the Department of National Revenue about the interpretation.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Chairman, I should like to endorse the comments made by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. In my riding there are sections of unorganized territory, water distribution falling under the provincial government. But there is no provision in this wording. It is a matter of terminology. We ask that the significance of the term "municipality" be somehow enlarged to take into account all the authorities responsible for public works of this sort, and that they be exempt at the provincial government or regional government or municipality or district council level.
I think the intent is there, but the wording is such that there will be neighbouring areas entitled to the same service, one of them being taxed and the other not. If the parliamentary secretary or the minister would look into this question and broaden the definition of "municipality" to take all these cases into account, it would be helpful.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Chairman, the point I am trying to make is that we do not feel it necessary at this time. I would indicate to the hon. member that the Excise Tax Act section 2(1) provides that the governor in council may determine if an incorporated local authority is a municipality for the purposes of the act. If we broadened the definition we could still get that kind of interpretation from Revenue Canada, but I think a determination has to be made under that section. Sometimes they would decide for, and sometimes against, but I think an incorporated body would have little difficulty.


Donald W. Munro: But we are talking about unincorporated bodies.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Chairman, I do not think the hon. member will ever see that particular change made. I think the decision has to be made eventually to incorporate. If it is performing a particular service, it could become incorporated. If it is not incorporated, there is probably a good case under a provincial act that it should not be considered in the same category.


Robert Hylton Brisco: First of all, Madam Chairman, I should like to thank the minister for including clause 18 in this bill, because it certainly will benefit a number of communities in my riding and elsewhere in Canada. I can reinforce the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and say that indeed we have in British Columbia areas called regional
Excise
districts which are represented by elected officials. A regional district serves the same purpose as a county council in Ontario. It has certain powers of taxation; it receives funds from the municipalities in order to carry out tasks that a single community is not financially able to perform. It would be reasonable to suggest that instead of confining this particular clause to a municipality, it be extended to cover any area represented by an elected body. This would look after regional districts, county councils or whatever may be the title.
This would not be a great imposition, Madam Chairman. Some latitude is allowed a private individual to transfer a water system to a municipality, but suppose that water system were transferred to a regional district. Would this tax apply then? I suggest we should make a very simple amendment to include any area represented by an elected body, instead of confining it to a municipality.


George H. Whittaker: Madam Chairman, it would appear to me that the minister is saying he does not want to change this clause; he will leave it as it is, and if there is any difference of opinion on the excise tax, it will have to be battled out with the Department of National Revenue. But my battle is with the Minister of Finance and it is to have the words changed and the thing done properly. In February, 1973, we tried to get a ruling of a Department of National Revenue official changed, but with no success. I have had the same experience in trying to get the Minister of National Health and Welfare to change a ruling, and I have had this experience with other ministers.
Ministers have not changed the rules to conform with the experience of people in the field. In view of this, I submit that the wording of the clause should be changed. I do not see why certain incorporated areas should not be granted the same taxing authority as municipalities. They serve the purpose served by a municipality but are not defined as municipalities under the act. I therefore plead with the minister to widen the meaning of the act so that the sort of problem I have referred to will not arise.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, may I underline what my colleagues from British Columbia have said. I was involved in the fight two years ago when we considered this legislation, particularly paragraph 1(b) of part XII of the act, which reads in part: equipment, at a price in excess of five hundred dollars per unit, specially designed for use directly for road making, road cleaning or fire fighting . . .
I distinctly recall that the minister of national revenue of the day categorically refused to recognize as municipalities British Columbia improvement districts, or whatever they are called. He did not consider them as municipal organizations and he insisted that the burden lay on the Minister of Finance to change the act or on the government of British Columbia to conform to the Excise Tax Act and define organized districts as municipalities. That was a cavalier attitude and strong representations were made on the subject. We have not heard anything about it. Why should such organized districts, which have a narrower taxing base than fully organized municipalities, be penalized simply because the government refuses to con-
2178

December 11, 1974
Excise
sider such organized regional districts, firefighting districts, if you want, or water districts as municipalities under the act? I hope the government will be flexible in order to give such areas the tax relief to which they are entitled.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has dealt with the subject fairly fully and representations have been made. Why cannot we stand the clause and look at this matter?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the minister. May I ask a question which will illustrate the problems we face on this side of the House? Does the minister recommend that we should invite the people of areas represented by an elected or incorporated body to write to the Minister of National Revenue and ask him to clarify the status of the areas in which they live? If they do this, they will create a major bureaucratic headache, one which it is best to avoid.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Madam Chairman, perhaps my point has already been dealt with, although it is not covered in the definition section. The definition of "municipality" in the Ontario Municipal Act is broad and perhaps the minister could consider that definition as applying to parts of British Columbia. I note the sizable contingent from British Columbia present in the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Perhaps the minister or the parliamentary secretary would consider applying the Ontario definition of "municipality" to organized districts in British Columbia, or whether the sort of definition covering the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton might not cover British Columbia improvement districts or whatever they are called.


John Napier Turner: It is hard to think of any definition which would suitably cover the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. From my experience, any definition which would cover a multitude of areas in British Columbia would be wide enough to cover any other parts of the country.


Frank Oberle: Madam Chairman, I will not labour the point. Certain areas which have been described as incorporated areas are not known as municipalities. I suggest that assistance could be given to such areas. For example, under federal rural programs such as the prairie farm assistance program loans for the installation of certain utilities in farm areas can be made. These areas are not incorporated and services are installed in unincorporated areas. When the minister reviews this clause, will he take into account the problems faced by people living in such unincorporated areas?


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, I cannot avoid hearing anything the hon. member says, even if I try. The clause is being stood and we will look at the matter.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 18 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Clause 18 stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


B. Keith Penner: Does the committee wish to call it six o'clock?
On clause 19-Certified institution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, I wish to speak to clause 19. A certified institution is defined as one which, among other things, provides care: I note that the wording has been changed from "shelter and care" to "care for children," and so on. For the past 20 years I have been on the board of directors of what was an orphanage but is now a high school for boys from singleparent homes. They are sent to the school by provincial authorities, but not for correctional purposes. These boys, who attend grades seven to eleven, are there for ten months of the year. Because of the ten-month requirement and the provision regarding summer camp, they were denied the certificates to which they were entitled under section 45 of the act.
I raised this point in 1971 with the then minister of national revenue; he indicated that he would refer it to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister comment on what I am saying, in view of the requirement for shelter being removed from the law? After all, today we are dealing with a different concept; we are dealing with the care of children who are either orphans, children from single-parent homes or children who are sent to a special school because of a behavioural problem. There are a number of schools like that across Canada. They warrant consideration under this act. Such schools which used to fit into the classical definition of "orphanage" fulfil a modern need and the definition in the bill should cover them. Perhaps the minister would consider what I have said.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, I will. I might say at this stage that the leader of the House will confer tomorrow with his counterparts about the business for tomorrow. Perhaps we shall continue discussing this bill, but I am not sure. I apologize to the committee for not being able to advise it fully, and I thank hon. members for the progress we have made so far.
Progress reported.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the unanimous consent of hon. members not to see the clock and permit the House to revert to motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent not to see the clock and to revert return to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 11, 1974



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Lefebvre: That the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to attend the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the purpose of studying the procedure in that House, provided that the members of the said committee travel when this House is not sitting; and that the necessary staff accompany the members of the said committee.
Procedure and Organization


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to burden the House, since it is past six o'clock. I merely want to say that we have discussed this matter. We think this is an important undertaking, particularly in view of statements made by the government in the Speech from the Throne. We consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So do we, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
28626-4)4

Thursday, December 12, 1974