1975-02-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, concerning the current activities of the Seafarers' International Union. In view of the current state of unrest in the union and impending legal proceedings involving persons connected with it, I move, seconded by the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That the Minister of Labour or the Solicitor General, or both, specifically investigate the present situation whereby union dues collected from SIU members are apparently being utilized to pay two Toronto private investigators, Terry O'Reilly and Max Chikofsky, to trail and keep under surveillance dissident SIU members such as Jack "Black Jack" Raffick-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am glad you enjoy it.
-thus in effect leading to the situation where members of the union are being made to pay for the privilege of being kept under surveillance by their own union, a situation which I suggest may be incompatible with the provisions of section 185 of the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It having been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask permission of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity in accordance with the government's
request to conserve energy and in accordance with the necessity of fighting inflation and business and industrial recession. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That in the opinion of the House for two reasons the $200,000 swimming pool under construction at 24 Sussex Drive should not be heated, namely in the interests of conserving energy and also because the lack of government policies to fight inflation and recession have placed the Prime Minister in enough hot water already.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect to the hon. member, and even in the light of my earlier remarks about giving hon. members the benefit of the doubt concerning the qualifications of urgent and pressing necessity as required by the rule, I am afraid I cannot bring myself to present this motion to the House.


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to consider the Standing Orders of the House and procedure in both the House and Committees;
And that the committee be authorized to include in its reports drafts of proposed permanent or temporary Standing Order drawn to give effect, if concurred in by the House, to any permanent or temporary change or changes proposed by the committee.
Mr. Speaker:: This Notice of Motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House pursuant to Standing Order 21(2).

February 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 199, 440, 464, 469, 502, 539, 644, 694, 806, 865, 925, 1,014, 1,016, 1,027, 1,101, 1,154, 1,156, 1,163, 1,193, 1,245, 1,300, 1,309, 1,320 and 1,370.
If questions Nos. 365, 447, 570, 576, 709, 1,185 and starred question No. 781 could be made orders for return these returns will be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 788?
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. [Text]


Mr. Herbert: 1.	On what basis does the Department of Manpower and Immigration judge the efficiency and effectiveness of the aid to immigrants by the groups funded under the Settlement Services Contract System?
2.	Are only two of the groups located outside the Cities of Montreal and Toronto in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec and, if so, what specific steps are being taken to provide adjustment and settlement service in the eight provinces not covered by similar volunteer organization?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The efficiency and effectiveness of aid to immigrants given by groups funded by the Department of Manpower and Immigration are judged on the basis of their demonstrated performance related to their aims and objectives as stated at the time funding is granted.
2.	More immigrants settle in Toronto and Montreal than in any other Canadian cities. There are, of course, voluntary groups funded by the Department of Manpower and Immigration that provide direct settlement assistance to these immigrants. Groups that provide a similar service to immigrants and receive funds from the department are also located in such cities as Three Rivers, Hamilton, Windsor, Edmonton and Vancouver. Officers of the department are currently evaluating submissions received from other voluntary groups in various locations to determine whether they meet departmental criteria. Those that do, will be eligible for financial assistance. At the present time, many voluntary groups, in addition to those mentioned above, perform a very valuable function in the settlement and integration of immigrants in many communities throughout Canada. In addition, the department is strengthening its capability to co-ordinate these services through its regional and local offices across Canada so that, wherever possible, immigrants may receive assistance in the location in which they live.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to public charges made in March, 1974 by Mr, Clinton Marsh of Watertown, New York, Chairman of the Thousand Island Bridge Authority, to the effect that the government has shown only
[Mr. Speaker.}
"lip service" and "cool disinterest" towards certain important matters on which the Bridge Authority has been seeking government decision for almost five years, what is the reason the government has not made the requested decisions, on what date will the government make such decisions and, specifically, will the government offer immediate cooperation to Mr. Marsh and his associates with a view to arriving at mutually agreeable solutions to points in question?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The government is not yet in a position to proceed with consideration of this matter because of the delays which have been encountered in obtaining engineering and financial information from the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority.


Mr. Forrestall: At what specific locations and on what dates will the estimated $3,000,000 a year be spent to upgrade existing married quarters throughout Canada for Armed Forces personnel, as indicated in answer to Question No. 173 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The locations and forecasted expenditures for 1974/75 for the upgrading of existing married quarters for Armed Forces personnel are as follows:
Nova Scotia
Barrington	$ 4,000
Greenwood	231,000
Halifax	189,000
Prince Edward Island	
Summerside	225,000
New Brunswick	
Chatham	77,900
Gagetown	202,000
Quebec	
Chibougamau	24,500
Moisie	7,000
St. Jean	18,000
Val cartier	113,000
Ontario	
Borden	118,000
Kingston	305,000
Moosonee	15,600
Ottawa	87,700
Petawawa	90,000
Toronto	137,200
Trenton	90,900
Manitoba	
Gypsumville	125,000
Shilo	97,000
Saskatchewan	
Alsask	36,400
Dana	90,500
Yorkton	25,700
Alberta	
Calgary	20,000
Cold Lake	295,000
Edmonton	230,400
February 10, 1975

British Columbia
Chilliwack	50,000
Esquimalt	15,000
Masset	25,000
Total	2,946,500


Mr. Forrestall: With respect to the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1973, what is (a) the amount (b) number of accounts (c) debtor of all the long standing Department of National Defence Accounts mentioned in Article 41 of the report?


James Armstrong Richardson: The amount, number of accounts and debtor of all long standing Department of National Defence accounts mentioned in Article 41 of the Auditor General report for fiscal year ending 31 March, 1973, are listed below:
Amount	Number of Accounts	Debtor*7,241,205.03	5	United Nations1,433,838.81	1	Indo-China Truce20,211.03	1	Supervisory Commission British Columbia654,259.80	3	Newfoundland81,174.81	3	Nova Scotia43,014.10	1	Prince Edward Island5,212.23	1	Quebec54,054.04	2	Saskatchewan11,273.85	1	Northwest Territories


Mr. Muir: Is the government giving consideration to preventing the carrying out of trawling operations in the Bras d'Or Lakes?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: A prohibition on dragging for groundfish in the Bras d'Or Lakes is not being considered at this time, but certain regulatory conditions are being considered for the management of this fishery. The intent of these regulations would be to preclude interference with the lobster season and with herring spawning which occurs in the spring. Oyster raking and the commercial salmon berths would not be affected because both operations are conducted in shallow water near the shore. A meeting was also held recently with interested local fishermen. The proposed regulations and the potential of the resource that could be harvested was outlined in detail. Further meetings on this subject are expected to be held shortly to permit further discussions and expression of views.
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE-CADET UNITS


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Is any consideration being given to granting officer status to those World War II veterans who wish to take part in the initiation and training of Armed Forces Cadets?
2.	Is consideration being given to reducing the required size of Armed Forces Cadet units in smaller communities?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The granting of commissioned rank in the Cadet Instructors List to World War II veterans has been in effect since the end of World War II provided that the applicants meet the prerequisites contained in the Canadian Forces order attached as Annex A.
2.	The formation of a cadet unit is authorized when it has been established that there is sufficient youth interest in the community and the availability of youth leaders to justify the expense of setting up and supporting a cadet unit. The required potential cadet strength has been set at 35. In small communities however, or in remote locations, a minimum strength of 25 will be accepted if this is recommended by the provincial committee of the relevant cadet league.


Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Privy Council Office 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?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Halliday: 1.	Are the individuals involved in the Changing of the Guard ceremony on Parliament Hill regular soldiers, cadets, students, etc ?
2.	How are they identified and what is the remuneration?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The personnel who take part in the Changing of the Guard ceremony on Parliament Hill are members of the reserves from two militia units; the Governor General's Foot Guards of Ottawa and the Canadian Grenadier Guards of Montreal. Although all personnel are members of the reserves, approximately 50 per cent are university students recruited by the two units during winter and spring specifically for employment in the Changing of the Guard detachment.
2. The members of this detachment, when not in full dress uniform, are identified by their unit cap badges. Their remuneration is dependant on length of service and experience as well as their rank in the reserves and varies from $14.50 per day, 7 days a week basic pay for a private

February 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions
to $44.50 per day, 7 days a week for the major who commands the detachment.


Mr. Stevens: Other than the corruption provisions of the criminal law that apply to a Minister of the Crown as a public official, is there any code of conduct that obliges a Minister, not simply to observe the criminal law, but to (a) act in a manner so scrupulous that his conduct will bear the closest public scrutiny in terms of moral standards, objectivity and equality of treatment to all citizens (b) give no special treatment on the ground of personal acquaintance, sympathy or anything of that kind (c) reflect, in attitudes and conduct, the elementary qualification of honesty and incorruptibility (d) refrain from placing himself in a position where he is under obligation to any person who might profit from special consideration or favour on the part of the Minister or ministerial colleague or who might seek in any way to gain special treatment from the Minister or ministerial colleague (e) divest himself of any pecuniary interest that could even remotely conflict with the discharge of his public duty?


John Mercer Reid: The government policy regarding standards of conduct for Minister of the Crown can be found in House of Commons Debates for July 18, (p. 5735 et seq.) and December 18, 1973 (p. 8837 et seq.)


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Fisheries Prices Support Board (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 Board?


Len Marchand: 1. (a) 1968,2; 1970, 2; 1972, 1; 1974, 1; (b) 1968, $13,206; 1970, $14,649; 1972, $2,000; 1974, $2,000; (c) (i) (ii) (iii), None.
2. The Fisheries Prices Support Board only had two employees up until 1970. One of these employees is the chairman, who did, and still does, receive an annual honourarium of $2,000. The other employee retired prior to March 31, 1972.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada ask the Cabinet to review its plans for construction expenses so as to try to minimize instability from one year to another and, if so (a) is this being done (b) will the results be announced?
2.	(a) Did the Chairman of the Council recommend a predetermined rate of growth for all municipal, provincial and federal non-residential construction (b) is this considered desirable and, if so, what steps will be taken to implement such a recommendation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2.
The Economic Council made several recommendations in its report "Toward More Stable Growth in Construction", one of which dealt with federal, provincial and municipal governments determining target rates of growth for

departmental spending on construction. The recommendations are currently under active consideration by the government.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	How many persons sentenced as habitual criminals in British Columbia in 1973 were convicted of any offense against the person?
2.	How many persons were sentenced as habitual criminals (a) in British Columbia (b) in all of Canada in 1973?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Please note that the statistics given are for 1972 as figures for 1973 are not available. 1. With reference to persons sentenced as habitual criminals, the only time we can determine whether a person was sentenced as a habitual criminal, is if he/she was sentenced to preventive detention. The Criminal Code states that "the court may upon application, impose a sentence of preventive detention, if the accused is a habitual criminal" (S.688(1)). The code also states that "where the court finds that the accused is a dangerous sexual offender, it shall impose upon the accused a sentence of preventive detention." (S.689(3)). These are the only 2 instances in which sentences of preventive detention are used. In 1972 there were 4 preventive detention sentences recorded in the Adult Court Survey (excluding Quebec and Alberta) under the following indictable offence heading:
Indictable Offence Heading	Sentence	ProvinceHabitual criminal	preventive	1 in Ontario(Criminal Code Section 688)	detention	1 in British ColumbiaBreaking and entering (includes Criminal Code sections 306(1), 307(1), 309, 310, 311(1)).	preventive detention	1 in British ColumbiaIndecent assault on female (Criminal Code section	preventive detention	1 in British Columbi
149(1)).
Unfortunately this does not account for those persons who have been deemed habitual criminals but not sentenced to preventive detention, nor does the court survey account for those persons who have been deemed habitual criminals by the courts with the approval of the Attorney-General, after court proceedings, but before or after institutionalization.
2. Statistics Canada catalogue 85-207, Correctional Institution Statistics, 1972, displays the number of males and females admitted and discharged from the correctional institutions in 1972. This accounts for those persons deemed habitual criminals after court proceedings, but before institutionalization. 10 males and no females were
February 10, 1975

admitted as habitual criminals; 3 males and no females were admitted as dangerous sexual offenders.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) On what date did Mr. Michael Kirby become a member of the staff of the Prime Minister's Office (b) what are all his duties (c) what is his annual salary?
2.	What previous employment did Mr. Kirby have with government on the provincial or federal level, including the duties and positions held?
3.	Was he at one time an assistant to the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia, Gerald Regan?


Right Hon.   P.E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: 1. (a) July 29, 1974; (b) Assistant Principal Secretary (Plans and Policy); (c) $35,000-$40,000.
2.	No previous federal employment. See part 3.
3.	This matter does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada (see Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Form-Fourth edition, citations 171(x) and (dd)).


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Joel Bell a consultant to the Prime Minister or to his Office at a salary of $1,000 per week or, if the salary is different to this figure, what is the actual salary?
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) What are all the specific matters on which Mr. Bell will act as a consultant (b) what are the names and job designations of all persons in the Prime Minister's Office that he will deal with?
3.	Is Mr. Bell a full time public servant as of this date and, if not, does he have other employers in addition to the Prime Minister's Office and, if so, who are these other employers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Mr. Joel Bell is a special consultant to the office of the Prime Minister at a per diem rate of $200.
2.	(a) As required on general policy studies and on the feasibility of policy studies to be undertaken, (b) Any persons in the office as may be required in his work.
3.	He is working full time on this contract. He has no other employers.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many Centurion tanks of any mark do the Canadian Forces have in their possession and, of these, how many are in (a) use (b) reserve (c) storage?
2.	In the past ten years, have any Centurion tanks, mobile or immobile, been sold to other countries for use as hard targets and, if so, how many?
3.	Have Canadian Forces relegated any recoverable Centurion tanks to use as hard targets and, if so, how many?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 (a), (b) and (c). The number of Centurion tanks in possession, in use, in reserve and in storage by their respective "marks" is presented in the table below.
Armoured Armoured Recovery Bridge
MK V	KM V/2	MK XI	Vehicle	Layer	TotalTanks in use	29	10	32	5	4	80Tanks in reserve	5	-	16	3	-	24Tanks in storage Total number of tanks	105	-	23	1	-	129in possession	139	10	71	9	4	2332.	No.3.	Yes. 41 tanks have been relegated to use as hard targets after being stripped of parts needed to support the tanks remaining in service. Such tanks are not included in the above figures.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many law firms have been appointed in British Columbia to carry out prosecutions for the government?
2.	Are any of the lawyers in these firms eligible to act as prosecutors?
3.	What training is given to lawyers who act as part-time prosecutors?
4.	What were the estimated costs of the programme in British Columbia for 1974?
5.	What are the names and addresses of these firms?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. Nine (from January to December 5, 1974).
2. Yes.
3.	No training programme was operated. The lawyers are all duly qualified members of the Bar.
4.	See answer to number 3.
5.	Andrews, Taylor and Co., Kamloops; Chertkow, Thomas and Co., Kamloops; Davidson and Co., Vernon; Graham, Graham, Nismick and Co., Cranbrook; Houghton, Gray and Jensen, Kamloops; MacDonnell, Graham and Co., Prince Rupert; Pearlman and Lindholm, Victoria; Sullivan, Smith and Bigelow, Victoria; Vanderburgh, Scott and D'Arcy, Williams Lake.


Mr. McKinnon: 1. With reference to the $603,911 DREE grant made to Central Canadian Distillers Ltd. (a) what were the amounts of each advance and the final payment (b) what were the dates of each advance and the final payment (c) what was the length of time between the final payment by DREE and the sale of Central Canadian Distillers Ltd. to US interests?

February 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2. Was any loan guarantee authorized by the Minister in respect of the operations of Central Canadian Distillers Ltd. in the period 1967 to 1974 and, if so, on what date and in what amount?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. (a) The $603,911 Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant to Central Canadian Distilling Ltd. (Full title Central Canadian Distilling Corp. Ltd.) was paid in two instalments. The first payment amounted to $468,334 and the final payment to $135,577. (b) The first payment was made on September 30, 1971 and the final payment on September 14, 1973. (c) Approximately three months elapsed between the final payment by DREE on September 14, 1973 and the sale of Central Canadian Distilling Corp. Ltd. late in 1973.
2. No loan guarantee was authorized by the federal Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in respect to the operations of Central Canadian Distilling Corp. Ltd. in the period 1967 to 1974.


Mr. Allard: 1.	What regulations govern the deduction for income tax in the amount of one thousand dollars in annual savings used for the purchase of a home?
2.	What is the time limit for making a deposit which will be deductible for the tax year 1974?
3.	Does this amount of savings deductible for income purposes depend on the (a) maximum (b) minimum revenue of an individual?
4.	Does a person who has sold his property become eligible to the exemption when he purchases a new property?
5.	What financial institutions will be recognized as agents for such transactions giving entitlement to this type of exemption?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The rules pertaining to the deduction from income tax for contributions to a "Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan" will be contained in subsection 146.2(4) and (5) of the Income Tax Act (as amended by Bill C-49 introduced by the Minister of Finance on December 20, 1974).
2.	Taxpayers will have until March 1, 1975 to make a contribution to a Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan for the tax year 1974.
3.	There is no reference in the proposed law to a maximum or minimum revenue of an individual contributing to a Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan. However in order for a deduction to be of use to a taxpayer, it would be necessary for the taxpayer to at least have one thousand dollars of taxable income for the year in respect of which the contribution is made.
4.	In order for a person to be eligible to deduct a contribution to a Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, he may not, at any time in the year for which the contribution is made, be the owner of a home in which he or any one else lives during that year.
5.	Any company, resident in Canada, which is licensed or otherwise authorized under the laws of Canada or a province to carry on in Canada the business of offering to the public its services as a trustee will be able to accept funds from a taxpayer for contributions to his Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	During the years 1965 to 1973 inclusive, have countries received gifts from Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the value of such gifts?
2.	Did such gifts come from (a) new estimates (b) the Consolidated Revenue Fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) 21 countries; (b) $64,650.
2. Funds were provided in Main and/or Supplementary Estimates and all expenditures charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Can the government negotiate a halt to the U.S. Garrison River project?
2.	Will the government negotiate a halt to the Garrison River project?
3.	Should the government be unable or unwilling to negotiate a halt to the Garrison River project, is the government prepared to negotiate a revision to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to prevent future possible damage and/or pollution to Canadian lakes, rivers and streams and, if not, is the government prepared to draft or negotiate a new treaty that will provide protection for Canadian lakes, rivers and streams from pollution and/or other damage originating in the United States?
4.	What was, or is, the formal reason put forward by the Department of External Affairs for allowing a period of approximately one year to elapse before writing a diplomatic note to Washington following receipt of a letter of concern over the Garrison River project, which was written to Ottawa by the Manitoba Provincial Minister of Resources, Mr. Sidney Green?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The government remains confident that Canada and the United States can eventually agree to alternatives to the Garrison Diversion Project as currently envisaged that will avoid causing injury to health or property in Canada. At a meeting between senior officials of both governments on January 16 in Washington, the United States was again informed of Canadian concerns in this regard. The United States side reiterated its intention to abide by Article IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty which prohibits injury to health or property in the other country, and undertook to defer construction of all aspects of the project potentially affecting waters flowing into Canada until it is clear that this United States obligation is met. At this meeting progress was made towards a resolution of the issue that will satisfy Canadian concerns. Provided that the United States decides on alternatives to the present project which would not affect Canada, the project would become of purely United States domestic concern. In these circumstances, the government of Canada would have no further interest in the Garrison Diversion Project.
2. The government intends to negotiate a solution to the issue that will fully satisfy Canadian concerns.
3. As question 3 is hypothetical, no answer is possible at this stage. However, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909
February 10, 1975

has served the interests of both Canada and the United States well.
4.	Throughout consideration of the Canadian response to the Garrison Diversion project, there has been the closest possible consultation and agreement between the government of Manitoba and the federal government. Following receipt of the letter of January 10, 1973 from the Hon. Sidney Green, federal officials were actively engaged in consultation with the government of Manitoba and in informal exchanges with United States officials to establish the most comprehensive possible assessment of the project's implications for Canada and then to elaborating the most effective means of documenting and registering Canadian concerns to the United States government. This led to the submission of a formal diplomatic Note to the United States government on October 23, 1973 setting out the anticipated instances of injury to Canadian hedlth and property in detail. During the informal exchanges with United States officials prior to the note, the latter were made fully aware of our view that the project as conceived would injure health and property in Canada.
2.
(a)
(b)
(c) (cl)
Order Paper Questions
January 1, 1974
188
30
January 1, 1975
239


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Transport on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1.
January 1, 1974 January 1, 1975


Mr. Herbert: Is consideration being given to changing the 1969 out-of-town telephone directories presently in use at Toronto Airport?


Jean Marchand: Yes. Decision soon to be made by the telephone company.
(a) (b)	17,183	18,916(a)	10,379	7,818(b)	6,373	9,399(o)	417	1,636(d)	14	63


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. (a) January 1, 1974, 1,984 employees; (b) January 1, 1975, 2,117 employees.
2. (a) under $10,000, 738 (January 1, 1975); (b) $10,000 to $20,000, 1,144 (January 1, 1975), (c) $20,000 to $30,000, 188 (January 1, 1975); (d) $30,000 and over, 47 (January 1, 1975). 1974: (a) under $10,000, 889 (January 1, 1974); (b) $10,000 to $20,000, 983 (January 1, 1974); (c) $20,000 to $30,000, 100 (January 1, 1974); (a) $30,000 and over, 12 (January 1, 1974).


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Justice on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) 693; (b) 815.


Mr. Robinson: Is it the intention of the government to re-introduce the antiprofiteering legislation and, if so, on what date?


André Ouellet: As was stated in the Speech from the Throne: "The government will introduce legislation to deal with unjustified price increases where such increases are identified".



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What funding, by agency, to the Arctic Institute of Canada, has taken place each year since 1968?
2.	What is the relationship of the Arctic Institute to the US Central Intelligence Agency?
3.	What funding has gone or is committed to the Canadian operation of the Hudson "Think Tank"?
4.	Of the amount that the Hudson "Think Tank" received, how much has come from the Departments of (a) National Defence (b) the Solicitor General (c) Supply and Services?
5.	What position does Marie-Josie Beaulac hold in the Institute, and what was the nature of her previous employment to the Honourable Jean-Pierre Goyer?
6.	Is information being exchanged with the US Hudson Institute, the CIA or any other US intelligence agency and, if so, with which agencies?

February 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions
7.	Is the Institute being funded by the US Hudson Institute, the CIA or any other US intelligence agency and, if so, by which body and how much?
Return tabled.



TRIPS MADE OUTSIDE OTTAWA BY MR. MICHAEL PITFIELD SINCE APRIL 20, 1968

Mr. Cossitt: What is the complete list of all trips made outside Ottawa since April 20, 1968 by Mr. Michael Pitfield, in whole or in any part at taxpayers' expense, including dates, all details of transportation, the exact purpose, the specific places visited and for how long and the names of others on the same trips?
Return tabled.



MINISTRY OF STATE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Symes: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology 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?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT SURVEYS

Mr. MacKay: 1.	How many reports, studies or surveys are currently under review by the Department of Transport?
2.	What are the titles of each of these documents?
3.	How long have each of these documents been under review by the Department?
4.	How many of these papers are available to the public?
5.	What was the cost of preparation of each of these documents?
6.	Is there a tentative release date for each of these documents and, if so, on what date?
Return tabled.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-TRAVEL EXPENSES

Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Post Office Department for travel abroad by (a) the Postmaster General and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.



CABLE TELEVISION

Mr. McCleave: Has the Canadian Radio-Television Commission a policy to enable Canadians in less populous areas to receive cable television and, if so, what is it?
Return tabled.



LIP-AMOUNT AVAILABLE TO EACH CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Korchinski: What is the amount available to each constituency under LIP?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister said, on Friday, and I quote:
The critical question is to assure security of supply in the period between now and 1985 when we anticipate being back in a surplus position.
Did the minister mean being back in a surplus position for anything more than that part of Canada supplied by Canadian petroleum, plus 250,000 barrels a day for the Montreal market? I ask this question in view of the minister's statement that the National Energy Board has recommended that in order to be assured at the end of the period they have discussed, up until the mid-1980's, that we would have enough oil to meet demands from that part of the Canadian market now served by Canadian oil, plus
250,000	barrels a day to Montreal, we should greatly scale down the amount of our exports.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The figure to which I referred related, of course, to that sector of Canada now served by the indigenous product, plus the additional 250,000 barrels a day into Montreal. One cannot be specific as to the surplus position at that time but if it is beyond that particular level we shall, of course, be very pleased.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that the National Energy Board projects demand in eastern Canada, that is the part of Canada not served by Canadian petroleum today, as in excess of 1,300,000 barrels a day by 1985, does the minister consider we are therefore in a surplus position in Canada- does he describe our position as surplus when we might in fact be a net importer of as much as a million barrels a day and be running a balance of payments deficit as a result of this fact alone, amounting to some $4 billion a year? Does the minister think it appropriate to describe that as a surplus position?

February 10,1975


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The comment was made with regard to the existing markets being served. Of course, as the hon. gentleman says, on a national accounts basis we will have to be concerned about the level of imports at that time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's rather loose use of the English language, may I put it very simply to the minister: Would he not agree that the energy policy of his department is about as confused as the transportation policy of this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir, I would not agree with that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to say with regard to confusion in energy policy, that I cannot really hold a candle to the hon. gentleman because he is arguing against policies on which we have been able to agree with the premiers of both Ontario and Alberta.


OIL-MECHANISMS OR POLICIES TO ACHIEVE SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to clarify what I think the minister just said. Is it accurate that his government has concluded, with our energy policy as it is now and in whatever state of preparedness it is in now, that Canada will not be self-sufficient in oil and that we might very likely face deficit of one million barrels a day in 1985? If that is not accurate and in fact the minister anticipates self-sufficiency in the true sense for the whole nation, would he outline what mechanisms, policies or initiatives will be taken to achieve this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member indicated at the beginning that it was his intention to address a question to the minister through the Chair.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one cannot at this stage be definitive as to what the level of production will be; this depends upon the success of exploration in the intervening time. Certainly, the feeling within the industry is that there will be a substantial accretion to Canadian supplies, particularly through northern exploration. As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, I was responding to him in the context of the figures used in the National Energy Board report.


OIL-POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE FROM ARCTIC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Harvie Andre: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There is another element of it in which the policy is far from clear. In fact, there are indications of their being no policy so far as the tar sands are concerned. Relative to the question of northern pro-
Oral Questions
duction, implicit in the minister's optimistic statement regarding the availability of northern oil, is the question of discovery rates, which we do not have any facts about and would appreciate his tabling such information in the House. The decision has been made to build a pipeline-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to put a question to the minister, he ought to do so as directly as possible.


Harvie Andre: I was just coming to it, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether the decision has been taken in cabinet to construct a crude oil pipeline from the high Arctic? If that decision has been taken, when would construction commence, have companies indicated that they will start planning, and when does the minister anticipate applications to the National Energy Board for a pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as apparently the hon. gentleman already knows, the question of construction of a pipeline is the appropriate subject matter of an application before the National Energy Board. I suppose that the best thing I can do is to refer him back to my statement of November 22-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about the statement on Friday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -the statement on Friday and of November 22, which indicate the prospects for future oil being available. Of course, a decision will have to be made regarding construction of a conduit to bring the oil to the Canadian market. As I have said, I anticipate that it will be possible, at the present rate of discovery, by the middle 1980's to have this supply in the Canadian stream subject to the regulatory provisions that are made by parliament.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-NUMBER OF COST STUDIES AND TIME WHEN SEEN BY MINISTER
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the statement by the President of the Treasury Board to the press to the effect that neither he nor his officials had an independent study made of the projected costs of the Syncrude project, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had seen the Alberta study, and since there were four studies, the list of which I have here, I should like to ask which of the studies the minister had in his possession and what was the exact time these reports were placed in his hands?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot refer to them by name but they were made available to us before the initial negotiations began with the Syncrude partners. My understanding is that the Harries study with regard to the economic impact in Alberta was not available. They confirmed, as I said, the general conclusions that my own officials had arrived at from an examination of the Syncrude documents.

February 10, 1975
Oral Questions


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, Premier Lougheed made a statement last Wednesday, and I quote from Alberta Hansard as follows:
We have, I think, received some draft or preliminary information, but not the studies. It probably will be during the course of the next week or the week after before they are finalized.
Premier Lougheed also made a statement in the legislature on Friday to the effect that three or four studies were in the hands of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on Sunday night or Monday morning.
In view of those statements I should like to ask the minister whether this gave him and his officials adequate time in which to make an accurate analysis and appraisal of the projected cost of the Syncrude project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that we would have liked more time, but it was adequate to confirm the conclusions we had arrived at.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-REASON FOR HASTE IN CONCLUDING AGREEMENT IN VIEW OF TIME AVAILABLE TO STUDY COST DATA
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister only had the draft reports and not the final studies, which he had received Sunday night or Monday morning, and in view of the fact that the most important study by Loram International, which dealt with the projected costs, states on page 2 that "it is not possible to completely reconcile the two estimates", referring to the projected July cost of $960 million compared with the later estimate of $2,048 million, I should like to ask the minister what was the rush to conclude the agreement last Monday since the minister did not have anything beyond these preliminary reports for making an accurate appraisal? Since the minister only had the preliminary studies a few hours before commencing negotiations, and since this report said it was not possible to completely reconcile this 100 per cent increase in the projected cost, what was the rush?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the rush, of course, related to the importance of saving the project. The underlying concern we had in this regard was in respect of action taken at that time in which the other levels of government agreed. It was important that we should continue in Syncrude, and it was for that reason we arrived at the agreement to do so. In respect of whether the studies were drafts, I would have to take a look again at the exact terms in which they were stated, but my recollection is that they were in relatively definitive form.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.

In view of revelations made before the Cliche Commission that two companies carrying out contracts at the Mirabel site illegally used free manpower from heavy machinery operators courses, as well as equipment rented by the training center for those courses, and since the courses are financed by the federal government, could the minister tell the House whether his department is making an investigation in that matter and whether steps will be taken to get the money back if necessary?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be proper to add our inquiry to that of the Cliche Commission. We shall let the commission complete its inquiry and when we know its findings, we shall see whether it is advisable to make our own investigation to find out whether our interests have been endangered and what are the means of correcting the situation.


OIL-AMOUNT OF PRODUCTION NECESSARY FROM TAR SANDS TO ENSURE SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relates to the process of his calculation in respect of the requirements for production of energy or petroleum in this country to ensure self-sufficiency by 1985. Will the minister indicate how much of the production he anticipates will have to come from the tar sands in order to ensure this self-sufficiency? In other words, how many plants the size of Syncrude will be required to be in operation by that time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman might have a look at the report of the National Energy Board in this context.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How about you?


TAR SANDS-METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
Paul Yewchuk: In view of the fact that presently there appears to be some reluctance in today's economic conditions on the part of private enterprise to proceed on its own, could the minister indicate what he anticipates would be the method of development over the next decade, whether there would be a continuation of government involvement or a change in the economic atmosphere which would enable private enterprise to go ahead with this development?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We would not anticipate at this point being involved to the extent that we are in the Syncrude property.

February 10, 1975


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: My question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the same subject. In view of the fact that the government has now reversed its policy and in so far as the Syncrude operation is concerned has wired this nation into a permanent high price policy on oil and oil energy, has the minister given any thought to approaching the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Kissinger, to tell him that the Canadian government, in order to protect the investors in the Syncrude enterprise, would support Mr. Kissinger's proposal to ask the Arabs to join us in setting a high price for oil so that we will not lose our shirts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the answer to that question is no, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that union leaders have recommended the rejection of a conciliation report which would give federal employees in certain categories increases of approximately 26 per cent over a two year period, and because it now appears imminent that this report will be rejected on a national basis and will culminate in a nation wide strike as early as this Friday, will the minister inform the House whether or not he has met with officials of the Public Service Alliance in an effort to avoid the consequences of a work stoppage in these essential services, and will he also inform us of the progress, if any, that was made at these meetings, if in fact they have been held?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have not met the official representatives of the alliance because that is one of the tasks of the officials of my department. I believe they are holding talks today. We have received a report from the conciliator. The government representative supports that majority report. We had hoped that the union representative would do the same. As for us, we have not yet taken position on the report.


Walter David Baker: The minister has indicated that he has not yet met with the officials. Would he inform us whether that is within the realm of possible action by the minister, and would he tell us why he has not met with them sooner, particularly in view of the fact that only four days stand between today and the possible work stoppage on Friday?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything in our power to avoid a strike. My officials are in touch with the alliance and I fail to see why I should intervene personally.


URANIUM-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SAFEGUARDS IN CONNECTION WITH POSSIBLE EXPORT TO FRANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would he indicate the nature of the discussions regarding the export of uranium currently taking place between Eldorado Nuclear, a Crown corporation, and Seru, the nuclear agency of the government of France. Will he assure the House that export of uranium to France remains conditional on meeting the requirements that he set out on December 20, 1974 with regard to IAEA and NPT and the conditions explicitly guaranteed by the late L. B. Pearson in this House on June 4, 1965?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Am I to
take from the minister's answer that there are indeed discussions going on between Eldorado Nuclear and Seru, the nuclear agency of the government of France, regarding the export of uranium from Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check with that proprietary corporation to see with whom it has negotiations, but I would confirm that the safeguards as set out at such length by the hon. member would apply, of course, to any transaction negotiated, not only by Eldorado, but by any other Canadian producer.


URANIUM-KNOWLEDGE OF GOVERNMENT OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ELDORADO AND FRANCE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Could the minister state whether discussions of this nature could be taking place between Eldorado and an agency of the government of France without the minister's knowledge?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. The management of Eldorado has been entrusted with the responsibility of managing the property and marketing its production, and of course any application for export by Eldorado, as with any other uranium company, would be covered by the existing law. The periodic reports I receive from the president of that corporation would give me some indication of the line of his policy.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

February 10, 1975


STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL PICKFORD CONCERNING EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION OVER COASTAL WATERS TO 200 MILES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister tell the House if Rear Admiral Reginald Pickford, the maritime forces Pacific commander, was stating government policy when at a press conference in British Columbia on Friday the Rear Admiral stated that Canada should not take any action or seek the 200 mile limit to protect our resources because we do not have the muscle to enforce it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the seriousness of this matter and in view of the fact that such a statement is made by a highly placed member of the military and could sabotage Canada's position, and a serious policy position has not been taken about the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference, would the Acting Prime Minister give an assurance that the Rear Admiral and people in this position will not be allowed to make further statements of that nature, because I think it is a betrayal of the position taken by our fishermen and the position taken at the Law of the Sea Conference.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was correct when he said that the Rear Admiral was not speaking government policy, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree that our purpose at the Law of the Sea Conference is to obtain general agreement on a 200 mile limit, in which case we would not need military forces to defend it.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I realize what the Acting Prime Minister has said, but I repeat my question: would he give the House an assurance that disciplinary action will be taken against Rear Admiral Pickford in order to discourage others from making the same kind of statement?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have heard the representations of the hon. gentleman.


ALLEGED INVASION OF CANADIAN TERRITORY BY BUFFALO POLICE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister knowledge of the incursion or invasion into Canadian territory by the Buffalo police over the weekend? It was reported that they chased a Canadian truck over the Peace Bridge and engaged in a fight with the driver and occupants on Canadian soil, only leaving hurriedly at the appearance of the Canadian police. Has the Minister made a strong protest to the U.S.A. as a result of this flagrant violation of international law?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of the incident to which the hon. member refers, and I have caused an inquiry to be made so that all the circumstances can be disclosed.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Supplementary to the same question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if, in his representations to the United States authorities, he will specifically state what police from the United States can and cannot do in this country to make sure that this never happens again.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend may be assured that once the facts are made known, the appropriate comments will be made to the United States.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the officials of his department have now scrutinized the papers of the Norris inquiry in the public archives, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to tell us when we and members of the public will have access to those papers.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I think I informed the hon. member and others who have written, the transcript and indices are available together with exhibits. Other material is either of a privileged or private nature, part of the basis for which was set out in a cabinet directive which I believe the hon. member has. That is the situation. The material is private and privileged. Sometimes it involves either personal property of Mr. Justice Norris, who conducted the inquiry, or it is private and confidential material between solicitor and client, or that type of thing. That is the assessment which was made. I have not seen the material myself.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the only papers which the minister has graciously consented should be made public are those which were already public ten years ago, and in view of the fact that our interest and the interest of others obviously must focus on the research material, the correspondence and similar documents, and in view of the fact that the minister's officials have now scrutinized that material, I wonder if he could tell us just what is there that is so secret that nobody can take a look at it?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already responded.


An hon. Member:: So did Nixon.


John Carr Munro: It is a matter of public policy. The advice I am acting on is that the material is of a privileged nature and should not be revealed under the 30 year rule.

February 10, 1975

Oral Questions AIRPORTS


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The closure of La Have, Browns and Georges Banks for February, March, April and May eliminates the inshore ground fishermen's most productive season by closing off a 500 square mile area off southwestern Nova Scotia. Since this section of South Shore has no mining or steel or other major industrial complexes, and one fish plant, Swim Brothers, in Lockeport has already closed its doors, indicating that the economy is heavily dependent on the fishing industry, will the minister take steps to request ICNAF member nations to permit the opening of La Have, Browns and Georges Banks to Canadian inshore fishermen using boats 65 feet or less in length before the entire economy of this area collapses?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in light of the hon. member's representations I will discuss this matter with the Minister of State (Fisheries) and reach some conclusion on the point.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the fact that many areas in Newfoundland were excluded from the compensation program announced by the minister in consultation with the provincial government of Newfoundland, and in view of the widespread reaction and protest at some of the areas which were excluded, I wonder if the minister has investigated the situation and if he would advise the House what action he will be taking to reverse this discriminatory position and include those areas mentioned.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the hon. member to clarify if the compensation program he refers to is the program we announced before Christmas.


Jack Marshall: Yes.


Roméo LeBlanc: If it is, it was quite obvious at the time that the intent of this program was to keep the offshore fishery in operation during the winter, and where there has been offshore fishery in operation, the program has applied. There were two other segments of the program, one was to provide fish for world food aid programs, and the other to help the industry which was affected by ice during the spring. I understand that those two programs are ongoing. If there are local situations which are not covered by these programs, I would be very happy to look into this matter.


PICKERING-PROPOSAL TO BUY ADDITIONAL LAND SURROUNDING AIRPORT SITE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the Airport Inquiry Commission recommendation that if the proposed Pickering airport is built, the government of Canada should acquire additional land surrounding the
18,000	acres now owned by the government in that area, including offering to buy out the approximately 3,000 or more homeowners of Stouffville, Claremont and other areas in Whitchurch and Markham, would the minister give his assurance to this House that if the cabinet decides to proceed with the Pickering airport development, the government will offer to purchase such properties which may be worth up to $200 million and which to date have been frozen without compensation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, the cabinet has not made a decision on Mr. Justice Gibson's report. Even when a decision is made, we are not bound to all the recommendations of Mr. Justice Gibson. There are things in it with which we may not agree, and the opposition has underlined a viewpoint, too, which may be completely correct. I cannot say anything else, except that the report has to be studied by the cabinet. It is being studied, and I hope we will soon reach a decision.


PICKERING-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF COST
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. The minister suggested that the cabinet is still deliberating on what its decision will be on Pickering. I hope the decision will be negative. Will the minister indicate to the House the total current estimate, now before the cabinet, of the cost of the construction of this airport to the federal government.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, an estimate was made at the beginning, when this process began. I think, after what has happened in Canada, we will have to revise the figures.


PICKERING-SUGGESTED DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION IN VIEW OF RECOMMENDATION OF CITY OF TORONTO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the jovial minister who has just answered a question. My question has to do with the unanimous recommendation of the City of Toronto Executive Committee. It recommended that under no circumstances should the Pickering airport be proceeded with. I read the report and the recommendations, and the longer I read the more apparent it is that the writer of the Gibson report was uncertain. In view of the unanimous recommendation of the City of Toronto Executive Committee, will the government reconsider, in the interests of the country as a whole and the

February 10, 1975
Oral Questions
city of Toronto in particular, proceeding with the Pickering airport and bring an end to this question.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman knows how this country works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: Explain.


Jean Marchand: Yes, I will explain. Airports are under federal jurisdiction, but that does not mean that we should not take into account the recommendations made by an important body in the city of Toronto. I know very well that in Toronto there are many other institutions which support the airport, and the federal government will have to make up its own mind. I know that in Quebec, for example, there was a fight as to whether the new airport was to be in the south or the north part of the province, and we had to decide. It is our responsibility to take all these factors into consideration, but we are not ready, and I think the right hon. gentleman would not have been ready, to switch the responsibilities of the federal government to any of the municipalities in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I make the general observation that the hon. gentleman knows how things work. I am not trying to find out how things in this country work, but how things in the cabinet work when the cabinet arrives at a decision. In view of the definite recommendation of the people representing the city of Toronto who know something of the problem-it would be interesting to know the views of the minister in charge of housing in this connection-will the minister give reconsideration now to a matter which looks, on the face of it, to be a vast waste of money for this country as a whole.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the government is taking this problem very seriously; otherwise, it would have said, "The Gibson report just confirms what we thought; let us proceed." Notwithstanding the report of Mr. Justice Gibson, we decided to take a third look at the problem, to be sure we do not make mistakes and that we are acting for the welfare of the country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we now have the answer. The government is again looking over the matter. That is what I endeavoured to find out at the beginning and I compliment the minister for letting the House know what is going on; because, if this is properly looked into, they will not proceed with that airport.


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Good bye, Barney.


Mr. Hees:: He is getting out while the going is good.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is opposed to the airport, as well. May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister clarify for the House the precise nature of the tax benefit available to the partners who have entered into the Syncrude project. Specifically, will the minister confirm that as a result of the partnership structure of Syncrude, the oil companies will be able to write off the amounts they have invested in the Syncrude project and deduct that amount from their other corporate income.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman reviews the tax law as it existed when the Syncrude agreement was signed, namely, before both the May and November budgets, he will ascertain the tax regime which was in force before that particular agreement. Basically, it provides that the income attributable to the province of Alberta under the joint venture agreement will not be attributable to the companies for the purpose of federal income tax.


REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF TAX REVENUE IF SYNCRUDE A CORPORATION RATHER THAN PARTNERSHIP
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the minister's answer is, yes, they will be able to write off their expenses. May I ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the minister will clarify this answer. Presumably, his department did an estimate on how tax revenue would be affected, depending on the kind of structure adopted by the companies engaged in the Syncrude development. Did the department estimate what the revenue loss would be if Syncrude were established on the basis of a partnership, as against the amount which would accrue to the public treasury if Syncrude had been set up as a normal corporation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there are lots of variables in any estimate, including cost, marketability, tax regime, eventual price, and volume, so that estimates would be available to the government but would depend on a wide range of assumptions.


POSSIBILITY OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD RECOVERING INVESTMENT IN SYNCRUDE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister sincerely for his skilful answer. May I ask a final supplementary question. Has Atlantic Richfield lost all the money it originally invested in Syncrude, or is the company to be compensated for it in any way as a result of the new agreement entered into by the government and the companies.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, subject to confirmation, my understanding is that the Atlantic Richfield investment, which is variously estimated at between $30 million and $50 million, will be lost to that company.


February 10, 1975


MANPOWER
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. A few days ago I asked the minister a question about the implementation of the cluster system for Canada manpower centres within the Pacific region. The minister said he would take note of my question and report back. Can he answer my question today?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I will try to speed up the process and make the information available to the hon. member. I hope to do it by tomorrow.


AIRPORTS
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport about the proposed new airport at Pickering. Is the minister aware that a third terminal building at the present international airport complex in Toronto, as provided for in the plans that were made for this airport when first laid out, would provide the additional service that is now necessary for the Toronto area much more effectively in every way than the proposed additional airport at Pickering.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is right. We have designed a third terminal for Toronto in order to give better service. However, the real problem is not terminals, but runways and noise. The province of Ontario and the federal government at that time-and I think it was a common friend who was there-promised there would be no other runway at Malton. There is no doubt that with the increase in traffic, the level of noise is going to be much higher. It will not only disturb a few thousand persons, but tens of thousands of persons.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister with whom I practically always agree. Will the minister look into the studies on this matter to see if it is not true that because of the fact jet aircraft take far less runway room than previously, take off more quickly, land more quickly thereby using the runways far less that the problem is not in the provision of additional runways, but the provision of additional terminal space to handle additional passengers and baggage?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know it is not the intention of the hon. member to enter into a technical discussion at this stage. As far as noise is concerned, we have to take two things into account, the noise of the engine when the aircraft takes off and lands and the
Oral Questions
number of movements of aircraft. If there are only two aircraft daily which take off and land, it does not mean much. However, if there are 1,000 or 2,000, it is quite different. Therefore, those two elements must be taken into account. It is correct that new aircraft such as the 747 produce much less noise than the old DC-8 and require a shorter runway. I agree with that. However, that means, taking into account the increase in traffic, if we have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the minister was right when he said this was probably not the place to get into a technical discussion.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the concern regarding the availability of offshore and Mexican labour for the current year and future years, a concern which has been expressed by farmers engaged in the production and harvesting of crops such as tobacco, tomatoes, small fruits and sugar beets, and in view of our understanding that the minister met recently with high commissioners and other representatives from several Caribbean nations, is the minister in a position to report to the House regarding the availability of satisfactory seasonal labour for these farmers?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There were some totally unfounded rumours that this program would be interrupted, changed or even cancelled. I assure the House they were totally unfounded. They did not emanate from any official source. I met with the high commissioners as recently as noon today. The meeting was designed to simply provide for discussion of the recent refinements and improvements in the details of the program by which these migrant workers enter and work in this country.


INVESTIGATION OF SOURCES OTHER THAN OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is supplementary to those asked earlier by my colleagues. Does the minister consider that with the involvement of the federal government in the Syncrude project and his announcement last week with regard to energy conservation that all the interests of Canadians are being served at this point with respect to energy conservation and self-sufficiency or can we expect the Canadian government to follow the lead of other nations in announcing an ambitious program to look into other sources of energy?

February 10, 1975
Income Tax


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have completed an assessment at least of the research work that has been done at the federal level with regard to alternative sources of energy. I hope at an appropriate time to be able to announce the details of that. Basically, going back to the energy policy phase one statement, the indication from that analysis is-all present major sources of energy are either potentially or actually in plentiful supply in this country. What is involved in planning programs and transportation is to make certain they will be available for Canadians in the future.


Frank Oberle: Will the minister advise whether the officials are aware that 40 per cent of the fossil reserve in Canada is in the form of coal and even with present prices, coal conversion is attractive. The technology is available. Will the minister advise whether his officials are pursuing that aspect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, coal gasification in particular is something that has been studied within the government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of State (Fisheries) indicated to me that before the end of the question period he wants to qualify an answer he gave to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. One word may have been missing from the answer.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, in answering a very important question about assistance to the groundfish industry, I may have left out a very important part. I may have left the impression that the inshore fisheries for groundfish were not included. They are included in this program.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lawrence (p. 2977).
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to what I have already said with regard to Bill C-49, with particular reference to the reasoned amendment now before the House which was put by my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence). This amendment highlights one of the most important positions that the official opposition is taking concerning the budgetary measures proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). We believe that the
people of Canada are entitled to a further tax reduction of 5 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Such a tax reduction would put some $500 million back into the hands of the taxpayers. We suggest it would be more prudently spent by the taxpayers than by this government. Such a tax reduction would mean $60 to $150 for most taxpayers in this country. That is why we stress the importance of amending Bill C-49 in the fashion we have indicated. We believe it is time the government reduced the onerous burden of taxation that it has placed on Canadians. Look at the facts. In two years, from fiscal year 1974 to fiscal year 1976 as forecast, the Minister of Finance is proposing that personal income tax revenues in this country shall jump from $11 billion to $15.9 billion on a national accounts basis. That is an increase of $4.9 billion, or 44 per cent, in only a two-year period. It is fortunate that my colleague's amendment will allow every member of this House to stand up and be counted.
Are hon. members in favour of continuing expansion of government expenditure, or are they in favour of realistically containing government spending? I recommend especially to Liberal supporters that they read our amendment before they blindly vote today or tomorrow, or whenever the vote comes. Let them read it. Are they for cutting back the tax load which is being imposed by the Minister of Finance on the taxpayers of Canada? Are they in favour of restraining government expenditure, or not? We shall find out perhaps for the first time in this House.
If hon. members opposite take the time to read the May budget and the November budget, if they read the reviews put out by the C. D. Howe Research Institute and by the Conference Board, they will vote for our amendment now before the House.
It will be an interesting vote to watch. Who will win? The Minister of Finance has given people to understand that he is for restraint. He says he is trying to cut back government spending but that he is out-voted by his big-spending colleagues in cabinet. Who will win? Will it be the Minister of Finance? If he were sincere he would offer to amend Bill C-49 before we get to a vote, in order to facilitate these tax reductions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Will the Minister of Finance win, or will it be his big-spending colleagues who want tax revenues to continue to gush into the treasury so they can spend still more? The other interesting thing will be to find out who is really in charge of finance in Canada at the present time. Is it really the Minister of Finance, or is it this mysterious group of seven? If it is the group of seven, we are engaging in a debate in the absence of the true financial leader. Where is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? He, together with the other six, is apparently calling the shots with regard to financial matters.
Our suggestion of an income tax reduction is a responsible one. It is justified in present conditions. I have already stated during second reading discussion of Bill

February 10, 1975

C-49 that at the present time there is in the government's name almost $5 billion on deposit with the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks. So the Minister of Finance cannot reply that it is impossible for him to make a tax reduction because to do so he would be forced to borrow money. Forecasts for the coming year indicate, if one takes the Conference Board's figures, that real growth in this country will be marginal; on a per capita basis there will be a deficit as far as real growth is concerned. So the minister cannot say that a tax cut is not warranted, as the economy is already running at a satisfactory level.
The Minister of Finance has already expressed the view that if money is left with the taxpayer it does more to curb inflation than if money is spent by the government. Why is he not a man of his word? Let him amend the bill before us, so that instead of offering Canadians a mere 3 per cent reduction in 1975 and ensuing years he could assure them of at least an 8 per cent reduction, thus placing a little more buying power in their hands.
Support for our proposition is developing day by day. Last week most hon. members received a copy of a policy review and outlook for 1975 entitled "Restructuring the Incentive System", edited by Judith Maxwell and put out by the C. D. Howe Research Institute. I realize the government is embarrassed when these reports are cited. Certainly, when I cited certain passages from the Jump and Wilson report I noticed the parliamentary secretary was quick to try to explain why that report was perhaps more favourable to his position than I had indicated. I observed, however, that he did not once challenge the passages I had read from the report. As I say, I realize that government members are embarrassed by some of these statements, but I would ask every member of the House to read from this C. D. Howe report the chapter on control of government spending. For example, the study reads at page 48:
It is fair to say that the federal government is seldom exposed to the kind of revenue constraint which normally influences the spending pattern of individuals and business firms.
Later, on the same page, the report states:
Taxes could be reduced in such a way that revenues would increase at about the same rate as the gross national product.
Wouldn't it be a pleasant surprise if instead of allowing personal income tax to rise at the rate of 22 per cent a year, the government would accept as its standard that personal income tax should at least not rise faster than the gross national product? As is pointed out in this and other research documents, there is an elasticity in personal income tax revenue of approximately $1.6 billion in relation to the gross national product. The net effect is that in the absence of suitable and repeated tax cuts we shall find that personal income tax will continue to outrun the rate of increase in the gross national product. This is why we in the Progressive Conservative Party are demanding that government revenues be curtailed, and in taking this first step we are ensuring that the government will act more responsibly in its spending.
Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker: if the Minister of Finance is truly being overruled by his cabinet colleagues, and the group of seven is tending to set financial and fiscal policy in this country, it is up to the members of the
Income Tax
House to ensure that responsibility be restored to the finance department. I have already touched on some of the figures. For the record, I believe it is important that they be left indelibly on everyone's mind. On a national accounts basis, in his November 18 budget speech the Minister of Finance proposed that government expenditures should rise in the fiscal year 1974 from $23.7 billion to $34.9 billion in 1976, a 47 per cent increase which we say is excessive. The minister also forecast that direct personal taxes from the taxpayers of Canada should rise from $11 billion to $15.9 billion, an increase of 44 per cent or $4.9 billion. Those, Mr. Speaker, are the Minister of Finance's own figures.
Shifting to budgetary revenue, we find the minister forecasts that personal income tax in fiscal year 1974 of $7.9 billion is going to skyrocket to $11.35 billion by fiscal year 1976, an increase of 43 per cent or $3.4 billion in a two-year period. In the earlier budget of May, the Minister of Finance indicated that we would be in a deficit position this year. By November he had changed his opinion, saying we will have a surplus of $275 million.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. We say there is room in the budgetary stance of the government to give the Canadian taxpayers this further break of $500 million, a 5 per cent tax reduction of between $60 and $150 across the board for most taxpayers. In saying this, I emphasize that we believe there is very little control over government spending at the present time. Certainly, when estimates have been under review in the finance committee we have repeatedly tried to get some evidence from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) or from the Minister of Finance about the actual restraints they are imposing upon their colleagues' spending habits.
For example, are there any five-year guidelines which cabinet ministers are asked to observe? Do these ministers have to furnish Treasury Board or the Department of Finance with an estimate of their expenditures for 1980 or 1981? Much to my amazement, I found that there was no long-range estimating by either department. The approach is ad hoc. It is the approach of allowing revenues to accrue, as I have said, and then deciding how those revenues should be spent.
Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, if we in this House do not shut off the increase in government revenue, the government will certainly spend the available funds. Let there also be no mistake that if the Minister of Finance is sincere when he says he believes in government restraint, he should ask for and receive the support of every member of the House.


Mr. Paproski:: And of his cabinet.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And, as has been suggested, of his cabinet. We do not want to delay debate either on the amendment or on Bill C-49, but I feel it is right to put the facts squarely on the record. This government has tended to overtax the personal taxpayers of this country. If the minister cannot put a stop to this, then it is time the members of the House stopped it. This is why I hope as many members as possible will speak to this amendment. I trust they will let the government know their views and, hopefully, the government will give us some answers con-
3066

February 10, 1975
Income Tax
cerning why they feel they are totally incapable of controlling their own spending.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we want to co-operate with the House in having a thorough debate on this bill. We look forward to going through each of the clauses in detail and furnishing explanations. We hope the House can make some progress with the bill so that we can authorize refunds to millions of Canadian taxpayers. Those refunds are now being held in abeyance as this debate prolongs itself.


Mr. Alexander:: Never mind that line of nonsense.


John Napier Turner: I have listened to the selective citations and statistics quoted by the hon. gentleman ever since he came into the House. He has gone carefully through reports quoting the odd sentence that favours his thesis. He has gone into national accounts comparing total cash deficits against budgetary figures. He has compared non-budgetary projections against budgetary realizations. That is comparing apples with oranges. That is the technique he has used ever since he came into this House, and he displayed it admirably this afternoon.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would you be specific on that?


John Napier Turner: Yes. This afternoon the hon. gentleman said that I had projected a cash deficit of $1.6 billion for 1974-1975 and $3 billion for 1975-76. Yet he looks at the current budgetary account and says we have a surplus. He is comparing a surplus account before the final drawdown with a total cash deficit which includes both non-budgetary and budgetary expense items. In other words, he is comparing apples with oranges and is misleading the House. If hon. members read the record of the debate, they will see exactly what he has tried to do.
I want to deal with certain specific allegations he has made during the course of the debate both on the main motion and on the amendment. He alleged, first of all, that in 1974 direct personal taxes jumped by 27.6 per cent; therefore, the Minister of Finance owed the Canadian public a tax cut. I want to state to the House that there were several factors which affected the growth of personal income tax revenue in 1974. First of all, as hon. members will recall, the government increased the amount of family allowances to $20 per child beginning January, 1974; these allowances became taxable and, of course, are reflected on the increased revenue side. This change is reflected in higher income tax revenue in 1974, even though the extra tax liability on individuals is more than offset by the increase in family allowances paid to the family. But in the revenue figure it appears as an increase. Second, the increase in personal exemption in the form of a federal tax cut in 1973 substantially reduced government revenues for the year 1973. Of course, this reduction for the base year, which again he compares to 1974, is reflected in a higher percentage increase in revenue for 1973-74.
The second allegation the hon. member made-he repeated it again this afternoon-is that the minister's proposal to reduce personal income tax by a mere 3 per cent is, in his words, not adequate. The increase in the

federal tax cut proposed in the November 18 budget more than doubles the total cost of tax cut measures, and the increase in the minimum tax cut from $100 to $200, the maximum from $500 to $750, and the rate from 5 per cent to 8 per cent, is equivalent to a flat percentage tax reduction of more than 7 per cent for all Canadian taxpayers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Then the hon. gentleman refers to the cash balances which are running somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion and says, "Look at all this money that should be distributed to Canadian taxpayers". This money is held to cover the deficit for the remainder of the 1974-75 tax year, a range of $1 billion. It is held for the deficit, as I indicated to the House, for the 1975-76 year of $3 billion, although I might say that in terms of the projected reduction in corporate tax revenue as a result of the falling off of exports, and higher payments for unemployment insurance, that deficit of $3 billion will be substantially exceeded.
In any event, these cash balances are money in the bank for Canadians to cover these deficits for the 1974-75 fiscal year and for the 1975-76 fiscal year so we will not have to go substantially to the Canadian market, leaving the market free for the provinces and the private sector in order to continue the capital investment we need to sustain the economy. This will put less pressure on interest rates against which the hon. gentleman has argued. So to say to the House that these cash balances ought to be distributed by way of further tax reductions would, first of all, limit the tax reductions already in play and, secondly, it would have an aggravating, accelerating effect on interest rates for 1975.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) went on in his argument to ask why the remaining 5 per cent tax on building materials was not removed. This is an arguable proposition. One has to decide where taxes are to be imposed and where they are to be removed. The reduction of the tax rate on building materials from 11 per cent or 12 per cent to 5 per cent-the hon. gentleman suggests it should be reduced to zero-is one of the several measures included in the budget to facilitate home acquisition and stimulate the housing industry. To reduce the rate to zero would have cost an additional $380 million, as I indicated earlier to the House. This would have been at the expense of other budgetary measures which in our view will provide a more equitable and progressive distribution of the benefits to Canadians. I would remind the hon. member of the exemption of $1,000 for pensioners, the exemption of $1,000 in respect of interest payments and dividends, and the reduction in personal income tax rates. We believe that lowering the rate by more than one-half will provide a significant stimulus to housing, while extending the reduction to construction and engineering materials will broaden greatly the favourable impact on the economy.
The fourth argument of the hon. gentleman, in terms of selective statistics, was that the-
-bulk of the minister's so-called tax concessions are the result of indexing, a Conservative proposal, and the partial removal of the sales tax on building materials.
February 10,1975

Aside from the fact that indexing had already been adopted by Belgium and The Netherlands before the hon. gentleman introduced it to the Canadian lexicon of-


An hon. Member:: You said it wouldn't work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about the Truro speech?


John Napier Turner: I obtain good ideas from wherever I can in the country, and whenever I find a rare one from the Conservative benches I am not averse to accepting it.


An hon. Member:: You certainly get them from somewhere else.


John Napier Turner: Let me put the figures on the record in order to counteract the selective statistics constantly employed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. It is estimated that in the 1975 taxation year taxpayers will save some $1.5 billion as a result of the proposals relating to personal income tax. These include changes in the tax rate, the interest and dividend exemption, the pension exemption, the registered home ownership savings plan and other tax reduction measures. This $1.5 billion is far in excess of the $750 million that taxpayers will save as a result of indexing. A little arithmetic with the data presented in the budget should make it clear that the bulk of the tax concessions are not provided by indexing and the reduction in the sales tax rate on building and construction materials. If the hon. member were fair with his arithmetic, presenting his figures on an all-embracing basis rather than a selective, self-serving basis, he would come up with different conclusions and would present a fairer picture to the House of Commons.
That is all I want to say at this stage except, if hon. members are willing, that I would table the proposed amendments we would introduce on a clause by clause basis. We introduced the bill before Christmas, as early as we could, to allow the taxpayers in this country sufficient time to consider it. A good many constructive suggestions have been received from all parts of the country. We also introduced the bill at that time to allow all parties to consider it. In the hope of facilitating passage of this bill at the clause by clause stage, I would be willing to table copies, in English and in French, of these amendments so that hon. members may make an appraisal of them. This would perhaps facilitate the passage of the bill when we get to committee of the whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. minister, that he table the amendments for the information of the House. Is it agreed that the minister be allowed to table these amendments?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: There are three copies for the table and the others are for the spokesmen of the parties. It may be that as we progress with the debate we will want to introduce other amendments.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Minister of Finance would be kind enough to accept a question.
28626 -59Vi
Income Tax
If we accept the minister's statement that rather than a 3 per cent tax reduction, the net effect, including the minimum and maximum exemption, is 7 per cent, is he indicating now that it is absolutely impossible to increase that 7 per cent to 12 per cent and he is unwilling to do so by giving the 5 per cent further reduction that we suggest is justifiable?


John Napier Turner: In balancing the ways and means when I brought down the budget, that was my best judgment at that time.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke during the budget debate in November of last year I suggested as follows:
-the budget, when fully appreciated by the Canadian people, will only serve to heighten their suspicions that government in Ottawa today is no longer responsive to their basic needs.
Events to date seem to bear this out. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in trying to reach a consensus among various groups in our society, has been performing a great juggling act. When speaking to labour groups, on the one hand, the Minister of Finance speaks as though business is the culprit in respect of galloping inflation; on the other hand, in a speech to a businessman's club recently the minister had the gall to suggest it was labour that was to blame for our economic woes.
This is the kind of leadership we have been getting from the government since November. What is even more disturbing is the fact that we on the opposition side have been partaking in what could be correctly termed a futile debate. No less than blatant contempt has been shown by the government in that the tax forms have already been sent out and Canadians have been told that certain provisions on those tax forms will be passed in due time. With inflation and unemployment rising, this government intends to push this voluminous bill through anyway, and by any means. This surely reflects indifference and callousness on the part of the government.
Once again the Minister of Finance seems to be saying that these problems will just vanish with time. The types of measures provided for in this bill have been tried before, all with a spectacular lack of success. The Minister of Finance still labours under the impression that providing more incentives to the private sector will alleviate the hardships of our present situation. The measures provided to increase the number of housing starts, for example, is a perfect example of the minister's belief in, and I quote his own words, "the primacy of the private sector".
One of the provisions of the bill would allow for wealthy businessmen to invest in large, luxury apartment buildings by means of being given a 100 per cent capital cost allowance write-off against all other forms of income if they invest in rental accommodation. The minister has yet to learn that over the past six years the number of starts in this country financed under the loans to entrepreneurs program never exceeded 5 per cent of the total. What Canadians need and want is action on a number of fronts to reduce the cost and increase the supply of housing.
Surely the minister is aware of the fact that land costs have been the major factor in the incredible increases in

February 10, 1975
Income Tax
price. What the government must do is institute large-scale land assembly programs to bring the development of land into the public sector. But this would go against the government's dogmatic belief regarding the primacy of the private sector. Never mind the $500 grants to first-time home buyers and the provision allowing $1,000 a year, up to ten years, to be deductible: both measures are an insult to the average working Canadian. We must not let the power of the private sector vanish.
So far as saving $1,000 a year is concerned, for most Canadians with young families this is an impossibility. This is all too evident in the measures to reduce personal income taxes. Individuals who needed some tax breaks more than ever got a "whopping" 97 cents a week taken off their taxes! It is all too clear where the minister's priorities lie. Not with the average working Canadian who has lost nearly $6 a week in real wages so far as his purchasing power is concerned.
The minister's priorities lie with the wealthy of our nation, the ones whom we have entrusted with the wellbeing of our nation. Yet, as I said earlier, this theory has been tried before and has failed horribly in many cases. The minister fails to see that the free market economy no longer exists in this latter part of the twentieth century except perhaps for the small businessman and the corner grocer. The United States is painfully realizing this situation now. Why must we follow through with their mistakes, mistakes that they have perpetually made over the years?
The question of resource taxation exemplifies the government's thinking in today's economy. The proposals which the government included in this bill regarding resource taxation seem to me to be the surest way of producing disunity and undermining the authority of the central government. I do not for one minute argue the fact that the new resource wealth had to be dealt with in a fair manner, but the minister, without apparent consultation or considering compensation, moved directly into provincial jurisdiction in making royalty payments non-deductible. As Walter Stewart painted out in a recent article:
This action was not taken in line with the federal government's national energy policy, because there is none; it was a simple naked exercise of power!
As has been pointed out by some of my colleagues, Alberta and Saskatchewan last year sacrificed millions of dollars-all in the national interest-by accepting a lower Canadian price for oil than the market situation would have permitted. Now, in a callous and unnerving way, the federal government has taken from the provinces a right which they have had for years. Supposedly, the justification for non-deductibility is that it was necessary for the federal government to protect a source of federal funds. In this context, it might be worth while recalling that for years the federal government thought so little of the revenue to be derived from the resource sector that it made a permanent series of tax concessions to the oil companies. These included depletion allowances, three-year mining tax holidays, exploration and development write-offs, and accelerated depreciation. Yet many of these concessions are available today.
Why on earth does the government attack the provinces now that resources can provide huge sums of money? It

appears as though the finance minister treats royalties like income tax. If the finance minister wishes to fatten up federal coffers, why does he not levy proper taxes on the corporations? We in our party have stressed this for years. As late as 1973, only a handful of petroleum companies were paying any corporate tax. Deferring taxes has become an acceptable practice among accountants of the oil companies. Had the government taxed these corporations as it should have, the people of Canada would have received well over half a billion dollars until the end of last year.
If the finance minister is serious about protecting a source of federal funds, why does he not attempt to collect these deferred taxes? Why create resentment in the provinces? I suspect the answer lies in "the primacy of the private sector." How else can we explain the government's intentions in lowering the tax rate on petroleum products from 30 per cent in 1974 to 28 per cent in 1975 and 25 per cent in 1976? And why, when we examine the profits of Exxon, Texaco and B.P., is the government hell-bent on providing a 100 per cent write-off of exploration expenses? Again, the private sector reigns supreme in Canada today.
The companies "supertax" campaign of a short time ago was worth every million that was invested in it. As I said earlier, if the federal government wants extra revenue from the resource companies, let them go after the half billion dollars that is owing the federal treasury; in other words, owing the Canadian taxpayers. Why create another constitutional crisis? Surely Canadians have come to realize that it is time to repeal the unnecessary tax concessions we have granted these companies.
We have been at the mercy of the oil companies for too long in this country. It was not coincidental that at a time when these multinationals were eager to export oil to the United States we had over 900 years of potential reserves. Then in only 3lA years, suddenly-when the intention is made clear that Canada will slowly, ever so slowly, phase out exports-we find that our reserves will only last us another eight years. It is rather interesting. It certainly gave them a great excuse to extract all the crude they could out of Canada and export it to the United States, lulling us into the belief that we had in this country virtually unlimited crude reserves. That is something that the oil companies themselves must answer for, but I doubt that they will.
To all intents and purposes the oil companies have been dictating to us for far too long. We saw an example of this in the last week or ten days when the government caved in to the blackmail of the oil companies. The multinationals spent millions of dollars preparing themselves for this blackmail which was handed to the government last week.
For years these oil giants have misled Canadians into thinking that funds from taxpayers' pockets were needed for the good of Canada. What absolute rubbish! These major corporations, most of whom are controlled from outside this country, have, with the acquiescence of Conservative and Liberal governments, consolidated their hold on Canada's resources, deriving for themselves the benefits which by right should belong to the people of Canada. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, to bring to an
February 10, 1975

end the control these corporations have over our natural, non-renewable resources. Giving them the kind of incentives that are provided in this bill is a retrograde step. It is contrary to the direction this government should be taking in resource development in this country. I stress "resource"; I am not talking about manufacturing corporations.
Taxpayers are fed up with companies demanding guarantees from the public and then being able to gouge to the hilt individuals who in the first place subsidized them. What bitter irony it is. On one hand, the Canadian taxpayer is being asked to put up $600 million-this no doubt will go much higher in the next two, three, four or five years- and then they want to sell the petroleum at world prices no matter what the actual cost of production will be at that time in Canada. Prices will be higher than now, mind you, but they may not be the world price. This is called free enterprise, taking a risk, and rugged individualism. That is nonsense. It is actually socialism for the rich and socialism for the corporations. They want everything guaranteed so they can make a profit, and then if they go under they expect the government to come to the rescue. The government of this country is the people, the taxpayers.
What is the point of having these corporations around, when we are asked to fatten their pockets with our money, the taxpayers' money? It is naive to assume that free enterprise still involves competition and risk. In this case free enterprise does not mean that at all. Speaking of rugged individualism, I do not see any of it. And speaking of risk, I do not see any either. I read somewhere the other day that the three governments involved could eventually hold 60 per cent ownership, not 15 per cent. I would bet right now that if Syncrude does go under, the government will pick up 60 per cent of the control; but if Syncrude does not, and the other oil companies benefit, there is no way that the three governments combined will then get 60 per cent of the control.
Today, most businesses as a matter of rule almost always expect governments to underwrite their ventures or those portions which have very strong risk factors. This is nonsense. But this government and this minister still believe in the primacy of the private sector. Canadians must have been shocked, if not outraged, at what occurred last week. Public money-not $300 million as we were led to believe, but 15 per cent of the projected cost of Syncrude-was injected into a project which will be controlled almost exclusively by the private oil companies. In other words, this government has left the future of our most essential product, the very commodity upon which our economy is built, to the whims of a few wealthy, multinational corporations. All the profits, all the decisions will be out of the hands of the Canadian people. What will undoubtedly happen-there is nothing thus far to suggest the contrary-is that Canadians will be subsidizing these wealthy corporations in order that the corporations may reap all the profits they can from our Canadian resources.
The only benefit Canadians will derive from this investment is self-sufficiency, and this is the only argument the government has been using-self-sufficiency at any cost, even to our national pride, let alone to our national pock-
Income Tax
etbook. No profits, no control; just self-sufficiency. I say "just" because as far as this government is concerned, for all its commitments which will include direct investment, or tax and royalty concessions, or a combination of both, this project could have been financed totally by the various levels of government, not only the three mentioned but any other provincial government which wished to participate. Some of my colleagues have already elaborated on the public funds that could have been invested, and I will not go into that in detail; it is already on the record. This project was by no means unattainable to the public. One of the largest Canadian newspapers, the Toronto Star, on February 7 wrote that control of the project is the key, and I quote:
The only way to establish control for now and for the future is to gain public ownership of the country's largest integrated oil company ... This could be bought for about $2 billion-the same as the cost of Syncrude's single oil sands plant and less than taxpayers of Canada are going to have to put up eventually.
The article then goes on to say:
Control of the major oil company in this country would give the people an unobscured view of'the industry as a whole... it would enable governments to fashion a long-range energy policy designed to develop Canada's fuel resources at a pace that will meet Canadian needs.
We could have debated the directions which Syncrude should take. We could have debated here, as representatives of the people of this country, what should be spent, where it should be spent and the rate of progress of the Syncrude development. Not now. It is up to the corporations, the multinationals with their hot lines to Chicago and Washington, and so on. If this, again, is a result of the government's belief in the primacy of the private sector, I suggest that the government rethink its position. All the proposals in Bill C-49 are based on this principle and, as I remarked earlier, their effectiveness is almost nil. If we are now to grow as a country, we must adopt guidelines whereby the public, through us, directs where our economy is going, and not leave it to the private sector.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, it does not matter what our present Minister of Finance does, what he introduces or what measures the government introduces. I do not know whether the minister answers his phone all day on Sundays, as I do, or whether he is in his constituency office all day on Saturdays. Being a minister, I do not expect he has the time. But when I go home, constituents come in week after week, and the only complaint they have is that they cannot make ends meet. It does not matter whether they are old age pensioners, veterans, people on workmen's compensation or unemployment insurance, or whether it is a working man with a working wife: almost every problem can be related to the fact that Canadians today- and I blame this government-are barely making ends meet.
When one considers that an industrial worker who is making a pretty good income today at $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 per year-compared with what he was earning a few years ago-will go broke after one month without work, that is how close the work force in this country is to abject poverty. Therefore, I ask the Minister of Finance to get off his corporate kick, to come down to earth, start talking to the real people of this country, the majority of

February 10, 1975
Income Tax
the taxpayers, and do something about the financial problems of the nation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on February 6 the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) moved a motion which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner-in view of the answers he gave today to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) today-has forgotten. I am suggesting that the minister has forgotten the amendment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He hasn't even read it.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps I should repeat its substance, as the minister has such a poor memory. It asks this House to decline to give second reading to Bill C-49 because it fails to provide for a further 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in 1975 and subsequent taxation years. A few moments ago the hon. member for York-Simcoe asked the Minister of Finance to tell this House and the country why the government is refusing to implement such a tax reduction. He asked the minister to reply clearly, without ambivalence and without evasion. I listened to the minister and his reply was not relevant.
I invite the minister, or someone speaking on his behalf, to explain what is wrong with putting back into the pockets of the people of this country about $500 million which will be taken from them. I commend the hon. member for York-Simcoe and the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham for prevailing upon Mr. Speaker to put the Parliament of Canada into the position-this has not happened for many a day-of asking the Minister of Finance, "Why shouldn't this be done?" We ask, why will the government find it so difficult to vote in favour of this very sane and sensible amendment? That is the question the minister and every Liberal backbencher must answer, and it is the question which the Minister of Finance has refused to answer.
The people of Canada will look closely at the vote on the amendment. Rest assured, they will applaud the Minister of Finance if he absorbs the idea put forward by the opposition. After all, he has absorbed other ideas of the opposition. Mind you, we may laugh a little out of the sides of our mouths, but nonetheless we will applaud the minister for seeing reason. Think of what such a reduction will mean to most Canadian taxpayers. Their tax savings will range, I understand, from $60 to $150 in 1975 alone. Think of the stimulus this will give our manufacturing industry. Think of the boon to our housewives. Surely the government is not so allied with the financial powers of this country that it cannot see the wisdom of pursuing a course which will benefit the people. After all, it has espoused the cause of the people in its public utterances.
The proposition we have put before parliament is simple: if you want to cut government expenditures-and they are an important aspect of the inflationary psychology of large groups in this country-we say that you must limit them in a responsible way. That is the substance of our amendment. Nobody has said that the opposition is wrong. The Minister of Finance was on his feet a few

minutes ago; he did not say we were wrong. Surely we are right.
I have authority for my statement, Mr. Speaker, and it is no less than that of the C. D. Howe Research Institute which published a book entitled "Restructuring the Incentive System". The book says, on page 39, that the upward trend in uncontrollable spending, meaning government spending, has risen from 50 per cent of gross spending in 1964-65 to over 57 per cent in 1974-75. It says, further, that certain entrenched programs are provided for by legislation. Because of the existence of these programs, the costs of which are indexed, and because of inflation, government spending has gone up. The obvious corollary of this increase in spending is that controllable spending has been shrinking so that it now represents only about 42 per cent of government activity. In other words, the policies of this government are narrowing the proportionate amount of discretionary income available to Canadians. We hope the Minister of Finance will correct this situation. We of the opposition say that the government's first obligation is to limit its revenues.
One hears people talking of government spending and people on all sides of the House talk about salaries and wages of public servants. I have even heard people talking about freezing the pay of public servants in this country. Public servants have come to me when they have been affected by programs which are related to the wrong things. The fact is that according to any statistical analysis, wages and salaries in the public service have risen at a rate not exceeding 9.4 per cent since 1964-65-a rate which is much lower than the rate of growth of total government spending. So it is not proper to blame increased government costs on ever larger public service wages and salaries. Public service income has not been a major contributor to the problem, and I doubt if it has contributed at all.
What has contributed significantly to government spending, to the growth of programs which might be curtailed, is that for better or for worse-and as far as the people of Canada are concerned it is for worse-the government is stricken with the disease of "ad hoekery". It corrects one difficulty with a band-aid and then puts another band-aid on another difficulty. There has been no long-range planning for ten years, not since this government took office; that is the reason. If the hon. member who is interrupting is trying to say they had some difficulty after 1963-which I do not admit-they have had ten years to fix it up. They certainly did not do it. In fact, they have made our position in this country a great deal worse.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) spoke about what he hears in his constituency office and reads in his mail. The fact is that despite all the chrome, the two cars, the ability to buy fuel for them, the good clothes, the theatres and everything else, in terms of what the working man has left to spend on himself and his family he is not as well off as before.
There is a duty on this parliament and this government to consider those programs which the C. D. Howe Research Institute, for the benefit of this government-and heaven knows they need it-indicated as areas of controllable
February 10,1975

government spending. If we are going to start somewhere, this research document is perhaps one of the best. It has been produced by an independent organization, not by the Department of Finance which even to this day, or the day when indexing of salaries is demanded, has not produced one definitive study on indexing. It is just as well we have the C. D. Howe Research Institute. It is a beneficial inheritance from the work of that great Canadian. The categories included within controllable spending which the government has a duty to look at, which it has not done, are capital spending, Crown corporation deficits, foreign aid and all other discretionary programs. Perhaps for the first time we ought not merely to look at the dollars involved in those expenditures but at the value of them. That has not been done in this country; there is no over-all cost auditing in terms of these kinds of programs.
This amendment which I had the honour to second indicates to the government that the opposition believes far too much of the average Canadian's hard earned dollar is being siphoned off and put into programs many of which are questionable. I defy the government to vote against this amendment. I defy the Minister of Finance to stand in this House and say to the people of Canada that he is against this tax reduction.


Mr. Nowlan:: He is against restraint.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) says the minister is against restraint. I sometimes wonder where the minister stands, in view of his famous speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto.


An hon. Member:: To his buddies.


Walter David Baker: I do not know whether his buddies were there. When talking to labour, the minister said that labour was the main thrust behind the inflationary cycle. This is a marvellous speech to read. I quote from page 8 of the text:
Now the major driving force is coming from the rapid escalation of wage and salary costs as those who work in every country press for increased incomes to at least keep pace with the rising cost of living.
Notice, he did not talk about the rapacious appetite of government. I am afraid the Minister of Finance is responsible for that one himself. The next day the president of the Canadian Labour Congress said to the minister that he questioned whether that was the case. I do not think he said it as kindly as I am saying it. What happened then? This resolute, strong, firm Minister of Finance drew back and said that wages, salaries and income were not the main causes of inflation. I do not know what are the causes. I do not think the Minister of Finance knows either, or he would look me in the eye. You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. That is what the minister is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I can always tell when they are waking up over there. Then we have the minister's cohort, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), speaking to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association on January 30, 1975. His head probably
Income Tax
occupied the same pillow during the course of that discussion. He said:
-profits seldom contribute unreasonably to price levels.


George Harris Hees: What apple-polishing!


Walter David Baker: Apple-polishing is right. He also said:
Even expressed as a percentage of sales, profits seldom impact significantly on price levels.
If it is not wages and salaries, and if it is not profits, what is putting us in this position?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Maybe it's the weather.


Walter David Baker: My leader says it may be the weather. We are in this position because of the Minister of Finance and his colleagues who with their programs, many of which are of questionable value, are demanding more and more from the Canadian public: that is where the problem lies, and the minister knows it. All Canadians are beginning to know it. What do we have to do about this situation? The government should remember that in the public service there are many capable people.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member asks me to name them. Some of our most competent public servants were recently forced out of the public service by the actions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who brought in his friend Micheal Pitfield. As a result, we have a public service in this country which has now been politicized at the top; it is now basically responsive to the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: It is part of the presidential system.


Walter David Baker: Whether that is
coming close or not, I do not know. I suggest that the automobile which the Prime Minister drives rivals anything that President Ford may have.


An hon. Member:: It is not a Ford; it is a Cadillac.


Walter David Baker: What has happened to the public service of this country? As a result of the appointment of that man Pitfield, a very high-class competent public servant has been driven out of the public service. I refer to Simon Reisman. In order to ensure that the Department of Finance is limited with respect to its function in the sphere of things in this government, not only was the deputy minister driven out but the group of seven was pulled into the Prime Minister's office. This was done to ensure that these $100 a day men-It used to be a dollar a year, as I recall it-are around the Prime Minister and that this minister and his public servants are bypassed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


Walter David Baker: I feel sorry for the Minister of Finance. He represents the constituency next to my own. I think he would really like to restrain his colleagues, but, like a couple of other ministers of the

February 10, 1975
Income Tax
Crown, he is out of favour over there; he is so far out of favour that an auxiliary department has been set up inside the Prime Minister's office.


An hon. Member:: You are playing politics.


Walter David Baker: I think it will happen again. A few days ago we heard a statement with respect to the conservation of energy, a statement which was not worthy of a high school valedictorian.


John Napier Turner: What's wrong with our high school students?


Walter David Baker: That's exactly it. Perhaps I am being unfair to our high school students.


John Napier Turner: The high school students in my riding are pretty bright.


Walter David Baker: I was speaking to a few of them the other day. I note the Minister of Finance is beginning to respond. I predict the same thing will happen as a result of the statement we heard the other night, the statement which was replied to so well by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I say that the next little cell to be formed in the Prime Minister's office will be the group of six for energy-the energy group.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: An energy cell.


Walter David Baker: It used to be a group of seven. They used to paint with oil paint. Now they paint with another substance on their brushes. That is what is happening. They are occupying themselves now. We hear the government is operating a collegial system.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: I would rather hear the Prime Minister explain what the collegial system is. I am sure the Minister of Finance is concerned about what is happening in the government and in the country, because things are running out of control, and despite his refusal to agree to controls he is a man who rather likes control. That is his "bag". That is what is happening to the country under the collegial system. The same thing is happening to the universities which also work on the collegial system; they are in trouble and this country is in trouble.
The country is in trouble because of a government which refuses to plan or to set priorities, a government which has no long-range objectives but which moves from crisis to crisis. It has come to the point at which really important problems requiring large injections of federal finance cannot be dealt with. We are still in the midst of a debate on housing. The former minister is sitting in this chamber now. There needs to be a heavy and dramatic infusion of federal funds into the housing field. But this will not come about. Instead, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) will go around with sticking-plaster, sticking on a patch here and there and subsidizing high interest rates in the process.
We hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) admit in his charming way-he is an engaging rogue-that

his department is in a mess. This was confirmed today during the question period by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald); his own department, he told us, was not in the same mess. Consider what is facing us in the field of transportation today. We have to embark on a vast program of the electrification of the railroads. We have to rebuild railroad beds. We have to extend transportation facilities between major cities. Yet as uncontrollable expenditures increase, a limit is placed upon our capacity to meet such problems. There are a number of areas in which long-range planning and heavy financing are required. Nowhere do we find the government embarking on this kind of approach. That kind of approach will have to consider all these programs from the point of view of the cost benefit Canadians will receive. This is something which is not being done.
That is why the party to which I belong is telling the government, by way of this amendment, that the process of revaluation must start right at home in the departments of government. The only way in which the government can be brought to pay attention to these matters is by our moving amendments which in effect say to the Minister of Finance, "Why ought not the people to have more money in their own pockets to spend in their own way? Why ought not the revenues of the government to be cut?"


Mr. Foster:: Why ought not?


Walter David Baker: It is perfectly good English. Why not accept this amendment? The minister has a duty to the country to explain, in the course of this debate, why the Canadian people should not get a bit of their own money back. It is as simple as that. I know it is difficult for some people over there to comprehend. There is a question which will go through my mind, and through the minds of a lot of other people, if the government votes against a tax cut for Canadians. The amendment dares and defies the government to vote against a tax cut for Canadians.


John Napier Turner: Don't smile over that one.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Don't choke up so much.


Walter David Baker: I think the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is a veterinarian. He had better stick to his veterinary medicine. I conclude by saying that we take the position that not only is it right and proper that government revenues be limited as a first step, but we believe a further tax cut would do nothing to impair the level of service that governments mighi wish to give. Indeed, it would be a great stimulus to the economy because it would raise the purchasing power of consumers. Thus, we think the proposition is a reasonable one. The minister has not answered the proposition. Perhaps some member on the other side will be put up to answer it, but it has not been answered to this date. We believe it is a proposition that will be welcomed by all Canadians if the government sees fit to adopt it.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to lend my support to the amendment that has
February 10, 1975

been proposed. I should like to speak briefly to two points dealt with in the budget as a whole. The government states that the budget is one of restraint. It also states that it is a budget that is going to prove helpful to those in greatest need of help. These are the two points upon which I wish to elaborate: first, government restraint; and second, the area of our population in greatest need of help.
So far as restraint is concerned, the government, this Grit administration, are not exercising restraint. All they are doing is preaching restraint to everybody else, without practising it themselves. The government tell us we must tighten our belts, while they continue to loosen their own belt. If the government were serious about exercising restraint, they would not condone such examples of waste as the sending of telegrams by the minister responsible for manpower and immigration to individuals who served on constituency advisory groups for the Local Initiatives Program, which cost the taxpayers of Canada $8,000. Some $8,000 of the Canadian people's money was spent on giving these people a Christmas greeting. Would not a letter of thanks have been just as good? I fail to realize why a telegram had to be sent, when a letter would have been just as welcome and a great deal less expensive. The government tell us, Mr. Speaker, that we must exercise restraint, yet this Grit administration are not willing to do so themselves. We have to exercise restraint and suffer because of their lack of initiative to do what they themselves are preaching. I realize that $8,000 is only a small amount in the total overview of government expenditure, but this is just one example of many.
This year is International Women's Year. While I wish to comment on the waste of money on this program, I do not want it to be understood as a criticism of the female population.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It will be.


Peter Elzinga: That is a chance I will have to take. I have always felt that women and men were born equal. Both sexes in Canada have a great deal to contribute, and I believe it is the individual's right to decide how she or he wishes to make that contribution. We see money being wasted by this Grit administration on such things as "Why not" buttons. Is one of these "Why not" buttons or a poster going to change the attitude of anyone toward the female sex in our population? I do not believe so. All we are witnessing is a promotional gimmick that is going to cost you, Mr. Speaker, and I a great deal of money-money that could have been spent in a much more responsible manner. Here is just another example of Grit waste. This is what the government calls restraint, while you and I have to tighten our belts. Not only do we have "Why not" buttons; we now have "Hire a student," and youth buttons. Where is it all going to end?
In the booklet issued by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) entitled "Budget in Brief", the following is stated: "Growth in government expenditures should be restrained". The minister states they "should" be restrained; he does not say they "will" be. Government expenditures will not be restrained even though they should be, because the present administration are not concerned about restraint; otherwise they would do something to curtail expenditures.
Income Tax
The sales tax on building materials has been reduced to 5 per cent. The government has announced that $500 grants will be made available to those purchasing new, moderately priced homes during the next year. Would it not have been a better idea for the government to remove completely the sales tax and to forget about the $500 home owner grant? The saving to the new home buyer would have been very much the same and would have been available not only to the first-time home buyer but to all new home buyers. It would also do away with the expense of administering two government programs. For every dollar that the government is giving out by way of a grant of this type, it costs approximately $1 to administer the program. Had the sales tax been dropped completely and the $500 grant done away with, our houses would have cost the same, but over-all we would have saved tax dollars because we would not have had to administer these two areas. I believe this is just another example of waste within the federal government. And our Grit administration calls this restraint.
The inadequacies not only of the budget but of many of the proposals put forward by the present government make me more aware each day that they do not have any positive solutions or policies to solve the problems of this country. Too many of the government's decisions reflect a strong tendency to put that which is expedient ahead of that which is basically sound from the long-term point of view. It is time there was restoration of ideals and principles to their rightful places in our national politics. This has not been observed in the budget. Once again let me point out that the government preaches restraint but is not willing to practice it. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, you and I must suffer.
This leads me to the second point in my presentation. Once again I quote from the booklet "Budget in Brief" published by the Minister of Finance: "Continued attention should be given to helping those in our society who are most vulnerable to inflation". Again I draw attention to the word "should"; he does not say that he "will" give them this attention. Who are the people in our society who most need this attention, and just what is the present administration doing to give this attention? What does a cut in taxes do for people who do not pay income tax? Nothing is being done for these people, yet they are the ones hardest hit by our ever increasing inflation rate. The budget does not help those people who need help most.
While I commend the government for introducing legislation that will allow senior citizens to write off interest on savings, and therefore at this time of high inflation to extend the buying power of the savings accounts of our senior citizens, the proposal has limited merit. It is of advantage only to senior citizens who have savings. There is nothing in the budget to increase old age security pensions which have been eroded by inflation during the past years. There can be no doubt that those who have for years paid tax dollars to provide themselves with a senior citizen's security plan are now being deprived of their just desserts. The people who pioneered this country and built Canada to what it is today are being shafted. The fact that senior citizens were not offered an increase cannot be justified. This is the administration which has stated that "continued attention should be given to helping those in our society most vulnerable to inflation", yet the govern-
3074

February 10,1975
Income Tax
ment neglects those who are hurt the most by inflation. This is truly a mockery.
The Minister of Finance states that the budget is going to help those hardest hit. What about those involved in our beef industry: who is worrying about them? It seems to me that the Minsister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) know the correct things to say, but they do very little about implementing what they have said. The headline the other day in the Edmonton Journal read, "Whelan promises end to patchwork planning". The beef situation is critical, but the people involved in this industry are the individuals this Minister of Finance does not worry about when considering revenue from income tax. These are some of the individuals who are being hardest hit, yet there is nothing in the budget for them. This budget does nothing to help the people who most need help now.
In closing, I should like to summarize: the policy thrust of this budget was intended to give continued attention to helping those in our society who are most vulnerable to inflation. It refers to the fact that growth in government expenditure should be restrained. The budget contains many other points, and I should like to ask if the goals suggested in these areas have been achieved. I suggest that is not the case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why my friends and colleagues opposite shout "Oh, oh" when I rise to take part in this most important debate. Let me say right off the bat that I am most pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion, a motion which is required at this time, under the present circumstances, when taxpayers need a break. That is all the motion suggests. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has looked at it, read it or even thought about it. Perhaps that is why the group of seven has been established-because the Minister of Finance has been ineffective. I say that with a great deal of respect for the minister. We all like him, but I want to know why that group was formed. I do not know why it was formed, but perhaps we can come to the conclusion that the Minister of Finance is not moving in the right direction or is moving in a direction of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not approve.


An hon. Member:: I think they are both going in the wrong direction.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the amendment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am speaking to the amendment; my hon. friend is too impatient. Here comes the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford). We wish him well.


An hon. Member:: The big collector.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have missed his smiling face. He gives me inspiration at times. Sincerely speaking, we do hope

the Minister of National Revenue is completely recovered, so that he might be effective in his job.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I just want to get those refunds out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will get to that blackmail statement in a moment. That statement is just like the statement of blackmail uttered by the Minister of Finance. Apparently this minister has not read the motion either, so for his edification let me read it: it was moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and reads:
-this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-49 ... because it fails to provide for a further 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in the 1975 and subsequent taxation years despite unprecedented government revenues and the resulting overtaxation by the government.
How could anyone be against that? I ask that in view of the fact that the letters being received by members, not only on this side but on the other side, continue to indicate that the taxpayer needs a break. The only conclusion I can come to is that the minister refuses to be aware of this need. I think there is every reason to justify the suggestion that the government is the biggest profiteer of them all. This government is collecting more money than it needs, and I do not care about what the Minister of Finance said in reply to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


John Napier Turner: Don't let the facts sway your argument, Line.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue have both participated in this kind of blackmail. They suggest that if we do not hurry and pass the bill, the Canadian people will not be able to take advantage of tax concessions. That is a lot of boloney. I remember when we debated the bill dealing with unemployment insurance: the minister came in with the same sort of blackmail, saying that if we did not hurry up and pass the bill, the people would not get their unemployment insurance cheques. What a lot of nonsense that was, too.
We in the opposition have the right and the obligation to try to get the minister to give the taxpayers of this country a break. We intend to take full advantage of that right in order to fulfil that obligation. We suggest that this money should be left in the hands of the taxpayer in order that he in his wisdom-which at times seems to be much better than the wisdom of the government-can use it in a way to offset the adverse effects of the inflationary spiral. The minister shakes his head. He understands what I am saying. He is trying to put down the inflationary aspects which have come about as a result of the wrong and archaic fiscal and monetary policies of this government.
The taxpayer needs a break; that is why we are trying to get the minister to leave this money in the hands of the taxpayer. One can imagine the benefit this would be to the housewife. Most of us are married and know, as well as those who are not, that when you go to the store you find that it becomes more difficult each passing week to make ends meet. What we are suggesting in this motion is that
February 10, 1975

because the government is taking in surplus revenue which is not required to meet the minister's budgetary or non-budgetary expenses, it should be given back. How much is the government receiving in revenue? Let me refer to the minister's statement of January 31. He said:
For December, budgetary revenues were $2,199 million, expenditures were $2,108 million, and there was a surplus of $91 million.
I put this on the record as an indication of how far this rip-off is going. The release states:
Finance minister John N. Turner released today the regular monthly statement of the government's financial operations for December, 1974, and the first nine months of the current fiscal year.
I have just read the figures, which indicate that there was a surplus of $91 million. In December, 1973-


An hon. Member:: Author?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Did the hon. member not hear what I said? This comes from the Department of Finance. You Liberals are the authors.


An hon. Member:: Will you table it?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will table it later today, if that is allowed. In December, 1973, revenues were $1,728 million, expenditures were $1,446 million, and there was a surplus of $282 million. This is all we are talking about. For the first nine months of the current fiscal year, budgetary revenues were $18,029 million, expenditures were $17,495 million, and there was a surplus of $534 million. Mr. Speaker, you will notice the upward acceleration. For the same period last year, revenues were $13,666 million, expenditures were $13,370 million, and there was a surplus of $296 million. What is happening over there? Why can this motion not be recognized as meaningful, in view of the minister's statement?
When I think of the amount of money that has been collected as a surplus, I realize that the taxpayer is not getting a break even though he is entitled to a break. The kind of break we are talking about will not affect one iota the minister's transfer payments, payments with respect to disability, sickness, old age, pensions or unemployment insurance. All these are guaranteed under the minister's taxation policy as it stands now and the budgetary requirements that he has already met. All we are saying is that if the minister is serious with respect to restraint, then because he does not know how to restrain himself and his colleagues we in the House must obviously play that role in determining how it is to be done. We on this side of the House, as well as members on the other side, must play that role because the minister-I say this with all due respect because I love him like a brother, if he will accept that phrase-does not realize that his credibility is being shot down when he talks about restraint, particularly when the restraint should be with regard to government expenditures.
I know he is trying to reach a consensus. He is meeting with labour, industry and other governments. What is he trying to do? Is he trying to play hanky-panky, to pacify the Canadian people, to let it appear as if he were doing something? What has he done? We do not know what he is continuing to do with respect to inflation. That is not out
Income Tax
the window; that is somewhere over there because the budget did nothing to abate it. That is not what the minister means. The minister must give leadership in restraint, and restraint should affect government spending. By removing some of that surplus money from the government's hands, we will apply the adage: If you don't have it, you can't spend it.


John Napier Turner: Better stay with your script.


An hon. Member:: What does the note that came to you say? Does it read, "Bring home two loaves of bread"?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will tell you what it reads. It reads, "Can't make ends meat"-spelled m-e-a-t.


An hon. Member:: Now we are getting down to the problem.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, if you don't have it, you can't spend it. Thereby we are creating forced restraint.


John Napier Turner: The old Conservative doctrine.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When I think of what is happening now, when I think of the adverse effects that touch us all because the income we have does not allow us to cope with the rising cost of prices-you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I am speaking to the motion-all we are saying is, first, that the Canadian taxpayer is entitled to a break and, second, because the government does not know how to cope we suggest a policy of forced restraint. This is the goal we are trying to reach. I hope hon. members can understand and appreciate the rationalization of the problem which I have brought before them. I say to the government, "Stop being the biggest profiteer in the country, and give the taxpayer a break."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Is Sinclair also giving you his speech to read?


John R. Rodriguez: I hardly think I would be looking to my right for somebody to write my speeches. Bill C-49 deals with individual and corporate taxation, but I would like to take a look at the section dealing with corporate taxation, specifically taxation affecting the resource sector. It seems to me that whenever governments, and my only experience since I have been in Canada has been with Liberal government taxation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Whenever I consider that taxation I am always amazed at the way in which Liberal governments look at the Canadian community as if it were a giant Lazarus with many sores. Whenever one of the sores breaks out, the government places a plaster on it. It seems to be the approach that this government adopts with regard to every single problem that has ever arisen in this country. For example, last winter we suddenly experienced an energy crisis and the government was
28626-60)4

February 10, 1975
Income Tax
running off to Washington and other places. It had no policy.
That is exactly the kind of approach they have to transportation: there seems to be no national transportation policy. It seems to me that the government has the same kind of approach with regard to regional disparities. The first time I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) speaking in the election campaign of 1968 he said that he would work toward eliminating regional disparities. Here we are, six years later, hearing the Prime Minister, when speaking last week or two weeks ago to some well-heeled Liberals in Montreal, saying that he is still working at eliminating regional disparities. There seems to be no policy with respect to this matter.
In the area of housing the government moves from crisis to crisis. It is always reacting. There seems to be no policy with respect to the environment, and no national policy with regard to the exploitation of non-renewable resources in this country. Whenever the government speaks about exploiting the resources of this country, it always talks in terms of money and in terms of job creation. There are other permanent, lasting factors which are not receiving sufficient attention and which are very close to the bottom of the priority list. Such a case has recently come to light. On Tuesday, February 4, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) told the House:
I am most happy, Madam Speaker, to be able to inform parliament and the Canadian public this evening that the Syncrude project will go ahead.
He then proceeded to tell us how the project will go ahead-at any cost to the Canadian taxpayer and with full profits going to the oil companies. It must be admitted that this Liberal government is consistent with every other Liberal government of which I have had experience in this country. When faced with a choice between a careful, planned policy development or a knee-jerk reaction, the Liberals will always sell out the Canadian people. The illusion of policy may be there but the substance never is; and, of course, they are always willingly accompanied by the Tories to my right. Just look at the farce which has been played out in this House of elected representatives of the people of Canada over the last couple of weeks. Last Tuesday night the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced the scheme whereby the Canadian people will be forced into financial support, to the tune of $600 million plus, of a project which is at best dubious and at worst a complete disaster. What was the response from the official opposition? The response was a nice little speech from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who was clearly caught on the horns of a dilemma. He said that the plan was a small step forward, but a dangerous one, though not too dangerous; risky, but not too risky; messy, but not too messy; insupportable, but supportable because there is no other choice. On one hand he worried that the government is going to discriminate against other companies by not giving them the same consideration Syncrude will get, while on the other hand he suggested it is time, and I quote, "to give an opportunity to Canadians as individuals to own this country."

Then we move on to look at what the leader of this so-called opposition has been asking about: he wants to know, for Pete's sake, if other companies will get Syncrude's pricing and taxation arrangements, and other matters of earthshaking importance such as if and how technology will be made available to Canada. In other words, this so-called official opposition which sits to my right has been so compromised by the wheeling and dealing their provincial governments have engaged in that they have no alternative but to sit on their hands and hope that this whole thing will just blow over.
The Liberal opposition party of Ontario is not so shy. Let us consider what provincial Liberal leader Robert Nixon had to say with regard to Ontario's participation in the Syncrude project. Last Thursday he said that this project could become, and I quote, "some sort of open-ended rat hole down which $100 million would just be the beginning." So there we have it, Mr. Speaker, with regards to the Liberals and the Tories. To paraphrase: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" It is not as though Tweedledee and Tweedledum have not, between the two of them, had more than 100 years to arrive at an energy policy for this country. In his statement to the House on February 6 on the subject of conservation, the minister began by saying that the actions of OPEC had, and I quote, "propelled us into an era where the world's undisciplined appetite would force it to turn to less accessible and thereby more expensive energy and material resources."
The minister also stated: "At the beginning of this decade the Government of Canada foresaw the dawning of this new era, but we did not foresee how rapidly we would enter it. I do not think anyone did." What a lot of boloney! The minister well knows that the signs of an impending crisis have been confronting us since the 1960s, at the very least. What he really means is that this government always chooses to ignore the obvious until it is upon us in crisis proportions. This Syncrude scheme is just more of what we got in the way of an energy policy from this government back in December of 1973. I said then that this government falls prey to expediency of the rawest kind. I said then that we should have brought this bunch down on the issue of resource ownership, and the events of the last two weeks have been an overwhelming indictment of the policy bankruptcy evident in this cabinet.
Let us look at what we have in Syncrude. We have a situation whereby the federal government will be contributing $300 million, Alberta will be contributing $200 million and Ontario will be contributing $100 million, for a 30 per cent equity in the project. That is, of course, if the projected cost of Syncrude remains unchanged-a projected cost which has already, from its original estimate, been inflated by 340 per cent. What do we get in return? Apparently we will get oil, but at internationally-oriented prices. What this means is that the Canadian taxpayer will be paying to get his own oil out of the ground so that he can buy it at prices set by other countries. He will get equipment for the project, but from Bechtel Construction Company which is an American company. The benefits which should go to a Canadian company for such major
February 10, 1975

Canadian purchases will in fact go to an American company.
Will Canadians get jobs? The projection is that once Syncrude has been built there will be only 400 on-site jobs because this is a project which has been designed by the oil companies to be capital-intensive. What about protection of our environment? No discussion can be entered into in terms of the development of our resources without some consideration of the environment. Regarding this massive Syncrude project, and indeed the whole development of the tar sands, it cannot be undertaken without a thorough look at the environmental problem and the implications for that particular area of our country. There are ample examples of development undertaken without adequate, proper concern for the environment.
The best example of this kind of mismanagement of the environment which I can think of occurred in the area I represent, which is the Sudbury basin, where Inco and Falconbridge Mine, and before them the Mond Nickel Company, carried out a major part of their hard rock mining and smelting of a primary product. Today we see here very vividly the damage caused in large part by ignorance but mostly by deliberate action, having full knowledge of its effects on land, air, sea and human life.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacK-ay)-Labour relations-Suggested creation of labour relations council-Government position; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Labour conditions-Proposal to establish body to set standards for workers in various categories-Government position. *
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.


Mr. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, discussions have led to the agreement that motion No. 25 be dealt with today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) that there is agreement to proceed with notice of motion No. 25 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) and that the motions preceding motion No. 25 be allowed to stand. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Home Canning



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should investigate the severe shortage of lids and jars used in home canning of fruits and vegetables and should instigate measures to ensure that a sufficient supply will be available to the Canadian market next year.
He said: The particular problem which is the basis of my resolution was the first problem presented to me the morning after the election of July 8. The telephone rang early and I assumed I was about to be congratulated by a well-wisher, but the question was not a matter of personal congratulations but, rather, what was going on in regard to a severe shortage of lids for wide-mouthed Mason jars used in canning fruits and vegetables and home produce. I had been so busy with the election campaign that I was hardly aware the shortage had developed. I can assure the House that the call which came the morning after the election was by no means the last call. A serious shortage had developed. It affected many of my constituents in the northern part of the Okanagan Valley, the area I represent, and also people in the southern end of the valley as well as the people in other fruit and vegetable growing regions of British Columbia and western Canada.
My reaction to these calls was to make inquiries of the federal and provincial departments concerned with consumer affairs. I placed this matter before the House in the form of a motion because I learned that one could not, by July 9, do anything to correct the shortage of lids which affected everyone in 1974. All the powers of the provincial and federal governments were insufficient to correct the shortage and the lost ground could not be recovered at that late date. The best we could do was warn manufacturers of the situation and urge them to have lids ready for 1975. I could not give any better reply than that to all those who inquired of me on this topic.
I was greatly concerned because I knew that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had been issued a clear warning in 1973 that there would be a shortage of supplies. There had been a shortage in 1973 which had resulted from inflationary pressures on prices. Many people thought it would be wise and sensible to return to the earlier practice of canning the surplus of their own gardens or of buying the surplus of local orchards and gardens and doing what had been done in the past, canning this produce at home. Consequently, in 1973 the demand for canning supplies outstripped supply. Nothing was done to curb inflation and the rate of inflation increased, so that by 1974 there was no longer a mere shortage; there was an absolute vacuum of supplies, with no possibility of purchasing home canning equipment. I suppose demand for such equipment had quadrupled since 1972.
I do not see why demand will not double again next year. As we know, the government has taken no clear action on inflation, and inflationary pressures will become

February 10, 1975
Home Canning
greater. I suspect that more and more people, in a time of recession and economic downturn, particularly in the province I represent, will wish to economize and do their own canning at home. The area I represent is part of one of the great fruit producing areas of this country. I know my colleague for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) is also concerned about this issue. I compliment him for the diligence with which he has pursued similar complaints which have been made to him, and for the number of times he has raised this question in the House in a variety of forms. If the needs of the local industry are to be met, it is necessary for the appropriate departments of the government, including the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Agriculture to make certain there is no shortage of supplies next year.
Other aspects trouble me. The provincial government has made available garden allotments to people in urban areas. The idea has caught on. I suppose it is a natural development; these allotments have proved to be popular. People in urban areas are now growing their own produce and frequently they want to can any surplus. Senior citizens as well were asked to consider home canning as a means of stretching pensions which, especially in times of inflation, are inadequate. They are being urged to investigate this possibility for stretching their pension dollar. You can imagine the frustration of such people who, heeding the urgings of government departments, have tried, perhaps for the first time in many years, to can their own produce but have found it impossible to obtain the necessary canning supplies. The frustration of these people must be very great.
I am concerned about another aspect of the shortage and it is this: the absence of lids, for example, leads people in British Columbia to adopt the conspiracy theory. There seems to be no good reason why lids or jars should suddenly disappear. After all, they have always been available. They have always been taken for granted. People could always buy them. In looking for a reason for the shortage, it is easy to suggest that the large, commercial canning companies are somehow behind the shortage. That suggestion sounds more sinister than the suggestion that enough lids were not produced by the companies to meet demand.
There is a local glass plant in my area which had been producing jars with lids. It is not difficult to explain to people that no one can sell a jar without a lid and that manufacturers of jars try to obtain enough lids for their own output. But tell that to the person who already owns jars but does not have enough lids. A lady who phoned me had 800 jars, all of which she had filled during the previous summer with home grown produce, but she did not have lids in 1974. When she wanted lids, she found they were not available. Lacking lids for her 800 jars, she would have to buy another 800 jars which come equipped with lids. So you can see how this situation is hard to explain.
Some questions still remain in my mind. I realize that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Clermont) replied, during the adjournment debate of January 28, to the question asked earlier by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I have read that reply rather carefully. However, I felt I

should still proceed with the motion I had placed on the order paper. Even having read the reply by the parliamentary secretary, I still have a few too many questions in my mind. I know the parliamentary secretary replied to the best of the information he had received from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. However, I would like to know whether the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is satisfied with the situation at the present time. Can they assure the House that steps being taken will be adequate to the need of the coming summer?
Another question is whether the lids will fit the jars. From the answer given here, I am not sure from where British Columbia will be supplied next year. Will it be from the traditional source of American manufacturers who moved in when the central Canada producers abandoned the market, or will the supply for next summer come from Canadian manufacturers? If the supply were to come from the Canadian manufacturers, I would be concerned about whether the supply of lids would fit the jars available. It is not good enough to suggest, as some of the output from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs suggested last summer, that the problem could be solved if the home canners in British Columbia changed their preference and settled for a jar with a narrow opening or a different size or shape than the one to which they are accustomed. I suspect that if they use a certain kind of jar it is because they have learned from experience that it best suits their purposes.
I am very curious about whether the supply which has been promised will fit the jars and whether it will be a supply of extra lids, not just a supply of new jars which are not needed. I say that because this industry had a recycleable product long before the term was even invented. Housewives reused the glass jars many times because they lasted a very long time. Along with the question of size is the question of quality. Disquieting questions were raised last summer as to the quality of the lids that were produced. When anyone did manage to talk a supplier into parting with a handful, the quality left a great deal to be desired. I hope the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is working closely with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on this question.
Has the Canadian government, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, made any inquiries of the Kerr Company and the Ball Company which have traditionally sold into western Canada from the United States? Have they actually tracked down the route of supply for western Canada, or are they hoping the lids will trickle in from central Canada? What will happen if the demand in central Canada again doubles or triples? What steps have been taken to allocate a supply to western Canada?
Something else raised a question last summer and as far as I can understand from my sources of information it will raise an even greater question in the coming year. Is it true that at the present time home freezers are unobtainable in western Canada? This has an important bearing on the problem. Some people who were denied the possibility of home canning last summer attempted to obtain home freezers. They found it difficult to obtain them. If someone
February 10, 1975

was able to locate a dealer with a supply, he found that the paper or containers used for freezing were in short supply.
This added greatly to the suspicion that there was a conspiracy involved. To many people it looked like a deliberate attempt to make it impossible for the individual to lay up a supply of food in the traditional method of home canning or the more recent method of freezing. Along with answers to questions about shortage of lids for jars, I am very curious to know whether steps have been taken to ensure there will be an adequate supply of home freezers for the coming summer.
I realize in all of this that the price of sugar may be an inhibiting factor this year. However, with the price of that commodity now down somewhat, and with inflation still running wild in this country, I suspect that the urge to compensate for the high cost of living by canning some of the available surplus fruit and vegetables which are grown in the area I represent will produce another enormous demand for canning supplies. I realize that this matter affects more than just the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Therefore, I would like assurance from government spokesmen for the various departments that this shortage will not recur in the summer of 1975.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) on his motion. This has been a problem for not only all western members but all those who are concerned about the western community. I was aware of this problem before 1 entered parliament. I had received requests for help in my previous job.
I now have good news for this House. In a letter, I and my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee), with whom I have been working, received notice from a B.C. distributor that points to the fact that there is accelerated action. In a newsletter to my constituents in Vancouver-Kingsway which I have just finished I state that there is good news for them, for the city of Vancouver and western Canada because Bernardin Canning Fittings have gone on double shift, Dominion Glass is increasing its activity, and Canada Steel has doubled its production in order to resolve the shortage of supplies for canning-a problem that was primarily western. We require a wide gauge lid of heavy steel. Last year there was an extremely serious situation. Like the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay, I also suspected there had been a deliberate shortage of production in order to raise prices.
The pattern of gouging in the marketplace seemed to have been set by the petroleum and oil producers. Exxon taught a lesson on how to create a shortage and profit by it. Consumer goods disappeared from the shelves for two or three weeks and then reappeared. Sugar, bread and cornmeal would disappear, then return. People would be glad to get them and would pay the increased prices. It was the pattern of the oil shortage: in the middle of a so-called energy crisis, Exxon announced a 300 per cent profit.
Needless to say, when the lids disappeared everyone was suspicious, and I was very outspoken about it in public because my job was then in the public sphere. By the
Home Canning
behaviour of Exxon and the other oil producing companies and the methods of creating a shortage, I am afraid we set a frightening example for the Arab states and we are now trapped in the great tragedy of inflation, the petro-dollar control which now exists. And we probably will not ever be free of it until we find an energy substitute. I feel this, and it may seem like something of a digression but it is very much to the point and, I suspect, may be similar to the elusive canning lids. Despite all the excellent work being done by our leaders, I feel we may well become feathers in the storm of the petro-dollar domination. I am sure it is simpler to resolve the canning lid crisis in 1975.
I do hope that the information I have received from the people we contacted in the canning crisis last year is accurate and that it will affect the whole of Canada. What happened to me was almost identical to the experience of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay during the election. But even before I was nominated, and after the election, people wanted help. I felt suspicious that somewhere in the United States there were warehouses full of these elusive canning lids and that one day the manufacturers would come out with new sizes of jars and new sizes of lids. This would mean that all those jars in basements across Canada would become obsolete, and I drew attention to this publicly.
I started a search and friends helped me through Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, through Germany, and I even went across the border myself to see if I could find a source of supply. I tried to see if I could find someone who would cast a die and flood the market. I was a dreamer, of course, because they said it took, at least a year to cast such a die. I even went to an inventor and a steelworker to see if they could create a lid to fit the topless jars-either in plastic or recycled tin. Then I thought that maybe we could go back to the glass tops and rubber rings and serve the public the old-fashioned but permanent type of device.
My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East then called a meeting last fall of the brokers in the business. It was held in my constituency office. I was rather nasty about my suspicion. In fact, I had just been on radio before we met, voicing my suspicions very loudly. As a result of that meeting, on January 28 I received a letter, which I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East received, from a man by the name of W. W. Lynch, one of the people at that meeting, president of Perco Sales and Associates. It reads:
Re 1975 canning and pickling season.
The writer, knowing full well your very keen interest in the upcoming canning and pickling season in British Columbia, is most anxious to keep you informed of the corrective measures Perco Sales and Associates have taken to avoid the rather disastrous shortages of last year on Bernardin Canning fittings and to a lesser degree Dominion Glass preserving jars.
The attached documents are quite self-explanatory and are direct copies of the detailed presentations we have made to all major wholesale and/or chain operations in British Columbia and throughout western Canada.
The documents referred to advise the stores that the jars are coming in. Incidentally, at the time of the fall meeting I had written the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-it was about August or September-saying that the canning

February 10, 1975
Home Canning
crisis was as serious to the homemaker as the energy crisis was to industry. As a result the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) acted immediately, and did manage to get some lids out west-from Chicago, I understand. There were not enough, though, to even resolve part of the problem.
The letter from Mr. Lynch of Perco Sales, Vancouver, continues:
Whereas we ordered some 90,000 cases into production on Bernardin last year, you will be pleased to note that we have managed to gear up production for 1975 to accommodate some 215,000 cases of Bernardin for western Canada. Needless to say, we have in particular, put the emphasis on wide mouth lids, the specific item so short last year.
Should you require any additional information relative to Bernardin and or Dominion Glass, please do not hesitate-
And so on. The details he sends to the large retail outlets are advising them to start getting in their supplies. The supplies for canning will begin to appear in the stores this month.
A further letter written by Perco Sales reads:
2.	We anticipate that the American suppliers, namely Kerr and Ball will have a short fall of supply quite similar to 1974, thus putting the pressure on the 2 Canadian produced product lines, Bernardin and Dominion Glass.
3.	We are concerned that you and the other wholesalers and chains may tend to underestimate the vacuum that now exists in terms of inventory at the:
a)	Supplier level
b)	Wholesale and chain warehouse level
c)	Retail level.
He goes on to say-he always uses the first person, and he used my name in the letter-and this one is to Cyril Keech of Woodward stores in Vancouver, one of the largest outlets:
In other words, Cyril, there is one hell of a pipeline to fill before the market is even ready to service the consumer, let alone the normal repeat, refill or back-up product supply required before we can claim the situation is back to normal.
To correct the extreme shortage we experienced on Bernardin last year, and to pick up some of the slack from the lack of Kerr and Ball, we have:
a)	Programmed production in the Bernardin Toronto plant to start much earlier in the fall of 1974 so that the 1975 requirement will be available by early February. This, of course, has been done.
b)	The Canadian Steel Company was approached and has approved a 100 per cent increase in steel allocation to Bernardin of Canada Ltd.
c)	Two shifts were activated for the first time in the history of the Toronto plant, starting December 1, 1974.
This next point kind of frightens me, though:
d)	A new line to accommodate additional production of key items will be in place and operating by March-April, 1975.
At this point I wonder if this is what will make the old jars obsolete.
e)	Most important, and depending on the item, we increased the quantities of finished product for British Columbia by anywhere from plus 100 per cent to plus 300 per cent. For example, we sold some 8,000 cases of wide mouth Bernardin lids in 1974 in British Columbia and will have some 24,000 cases of this specific item for 1975.
I would like to quote George Washington because I think it is rather interesting that what he said in August, 1777, sounds very much like today in 1975. He was writing to the president of the congress and he said:

The matter I allude to is the exorbitant price exacted by the merchants and vendors of goods for every necessary they dispose of. I am sensible the trouble and risk in importing give the adventurers a right to a generous price, and such, from the motives of policy, should be paid; but yet I cannot conceive that they, in direct violation of every principle of generosity, or reason and of justice, should be allowed, if it possible to restrain 'em, to avail themselves of the difficulties of the times, and to amass fortunes upon the public ruin.
I do hope that the motion of the member for Okanagan-Kootenay is considered seriously and that there is a watchfulness, at least, from the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) when the time comes for people to bring in their own gardens or to harvest the fruit of the fall.


George H. Whittaker: Madam Speaker, on rising to speak to this motion may I say I sincerely hope that in the interests of consumers in Western Canada, particularly housewives who preserve the products of agriculture, the government will see fit to accept the motion moved this afternoon. This will be an indication that it is taking the matter seriously. On many occasions when I have risen to ask questions about the matter it has appeared to me that the government did not take the matter seriously because the same situation did not arise in eastern Canada.
I should very much like to show my file on this subject to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I knew what the problem was by the end of July last year. Some of my constituents said a shortage was deliberately created to raise the price, but very early I found that this was not so. There was even a shortage the previous year, but it was not as bad. Nevertheless, no steps were taken by anyone, be they distributor, chain store or anybody else, to increase manufacture of these lids. The reason I raised the subject early this year is that these lids must be manufactured long before they are used for canning. Someone must take the responsibility of storing them, keeping an inventory, and so on, and it was claimed that this was the manufacturer's responsibility.
Early last July I wrote to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the Food Prices Review Board. Eventually I received answers from all of these bodies, but the only answer that really made sense was from the Food Prices Review Board. This made me feel bad because I had been rather hard on them in parliament the previous year. They do not have the same type of facilities that departments and ministers of the Crown have, yet they did the best job of sorting out this problem.
The reason there was a shortage in western Canada of these lids for wide-mouthed Mason jars was that for the last 10 or 12 years these lids were imported from the United States because they were cheaper than lids shipped from eastern Canada. Incidentally, the same thing can be said of meat pies, and it will soon be true of boats and mobile homes as it has been for many other commodities purchased by western Canadian consumers. Since they
February 10, 1975

can be obtained cheaper from the United States, this means Canadian businesses are put out of business and this means people are put out of work.
There are no suppliers of these lids in western Canada, and eastern Canadian suppliers could not compete with U.S. imports. They would dearly like to supply western Canada and increase their production, hire more Canadians, and expand their lines of manufacture, but since these products are cheaper to import from the United States their market was limited. A shortage of tin plate arose: What did the U.S. manufacturers do? They sold at home where they can make more money than by exporting to Canada. Although supplies were scarce in the United States, they were not as short as here. They looked after their own people, so the people in western Canada had to go without.
Two thousand dozen lids were sent from eastern Canada by the end of July, as a result of the letters I wrote and my involvement in the matter. Not only that, but some enterprising merchants from western Canada made arrangements in eastern Canada to have lids sent west. I visited a few stores that had lids for sale only because they were able to make a deal with a supplier in eastern Canada. They were used as "come ons" and the supply did not last very long. There was just not sufficient surplus in eastern Canada to meet our requirements.
The shortage still exists, Madam Speaker, which is why I raised this matter again early in December. If eastern manufacturers are to gear their production to supplying western Canada, their production must not be put in jeopardy if the United States suddenly finds it has a surplus of these lids and exports them to Canada at a cheaper price. This would completely disrupt the market again.
Another reason Eastern suppliers were not able to get further supplies of tin plate so they could supply western Canada was they were held to the average supply they had had for the last three years. They had not been supplying Western Canada for those three years. They obviously had no quota for Western Canada. In other words, these manufacturers needed additional supplies of tin plate, and this was the reason I contacted the various departments. Someone has to ensure that they get them. This is the responsibility of the Government. I was happy to hear the other evening the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Clermont) who said that something was going to be done to this end. Certainly action must be taken by a government department; we cannot leave it to the manufacturers or for someone to run all over the country in search of supplies.


Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion in the earnest hope that we can shed some light on this crisis. As indicated by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) as well as the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), this was an extremely crucial matter during last summer. My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and I worked very hard to try to find some answer to this shortage of wide mouthed lids.
Home Canning
With all due respect I should like to go over briefly some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I think it is an interesting fact that widemouthed jars are very popular but are used more in western Canada than in eastern Canada. We have different growing seasons, and that is why there is a greater demand for these wide-mouthed jars in western Canada.
Having regard to the Kerr company, the sales representatives have said that they put their orders in a year in advance because these items are used for a seasonal product. When we spoke to many food brokers, manufacturers and wholesalers, we were told that it certainly looked like there was a conspiracy in that these companies were trying to create a shortage of supply in order to drive up the prices. The point is that when we confronted them, and suggested that it would appear to us that they were doing a terrible job of sales forecasting, we were told that they did not really expect such an increase in demand. This is the answer we were given, plus the other reasons mentioned by the two members from the Okanagan region.
Let me read into the record one letter I received at the time the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and myself held our emergency meeting. This letter is from Martin, Robertson & Bain Ltd., food brokers, importers, exporters, and sales agents for Kerr Glass, one of the main manufacturers of wide-mouthed jar lids. The letter is dated August 30, 1974, and reads as follows:
On behalf of our principle, Kerr Glass Manufacturing Corporation, we submit the following regarding current shortage of home-canning caps and lids (commonly referred to as "fittings").
As far as Canada ins concerned, Kerr products are sold only in B.C. A very few cases of fittings find their way into Alberta-total of 41 cases in 1973; 30 cases this year.
Kerr sales in B.C. runs 80% to 85% in wide mouth sizes, which is the reverse to the U.S.A., where, with the exception of the Pacific coast states, sales are heavier to regular width jar openings.
Basically, the current shortage (which is mainly in wide mouth) is attributable to:
1.	Shortage of tinplate-as acute as during World War II.
2.	Wide mouth caps and lids need a heavier gauge tinplate than regular-the heavier gauge is not as readily available as regular gauge.
3.	Tremendous resurgence to backyard gardens and home-canning- see attached article quoting the president of Burpee Seed. This resulted in all home-canner manufacturers running out of stocks before the 1973 season ended. Despite early sell-out, we had a record year in Kerr sales in B.C. in 1973.
4.	Shortage at the end of last season left "pipelines" to be filled-at manufacturing, wholesale and retail levels. Despite increased shipments to date this year vs. total year 1973 (except wide mouth lids), shortages continue.
We regret we are unable to offer any real hope for the balance of this season. Subject to availability of tinplate, our principal expects to produce some fittings early in September, but these would not reach retail shelves until late September/early October.
Please be assured we are doing all possible to obtain supplies.
I think some doubt is left in the minds of hon. members as to whether they were doing everything possible. I would repeat that they put their orders in during the season for the next year's supply. At that point in time they were faced with a situation in which they could not go into production. Their orders were placed, they received their supply, and that was the end of it. It would

February 10, 1975
Home Canning
seem to me that if there are sales available the manufacturers will make every effort to fulfil the demand. As indicated by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I think they are attempting to do just that at the present moment.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, in doing a little research on this subject I uncovered a piece of information that is of great interest to myself in that it has reference to my own home town. Looking into the whole subject of glass production for bottling and so on I discovered that the very first Canadian glass factory was built in 1847 in a location called Ottawa. The company was christened the Ottawa Glass Works in 1848. It built beautiful specimens of all types of glass which were being advertised in Montreal in late 1848.
An advertisement appearing in 1850 refers to the manufacture of items ranging from door knobs to mirrors, and from lamp chimneys to ginger beer bottles. I have a copy of an advertisement placed by the Ottawa Glass Works in the Montreal Herald and Daily Commercial Gazette on November 14, 1850. It referred to all kinds of hollow ware including apothecary bottles, vials, tubes, mineral bottles, etc.
In 1864 the owner of this glass factory was George Matthews. When a new post office was established to serve this glass-making community it was called Hudson, the maiden name of Matthews' wife, and the name remains to this day. The interesting point is that I come from the town of Hudson, which used to be Ottawa, and was changed to Hudson; and now this town in which I am speaking, formerly Bytown, is called Ottawa.
The glass industry of Vaudreuil was the earliest sustained attempt to manufacture and market Canadian made glass on a large scale. However, that is a matter of history, as well expounded by those hon. members whose constituencies are most affected by the scarcity in certain areas of the country.
The government has been very concerned about the difficulties experienced by Canadian consumers last summer-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I have been listening to the hon. member and am wondering if he realizes that the motion refers to a severe shortage of lids and jars. Perhaps the hon. member is about to come to that point.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was leading up to that subject, but since you have raised the point, quite frankly the reason for my research was that I had never heard, I suppose, being an easterner, of a Mason jar. I tried to find out what it was, but must admit that the combined resources of the House of Commons research staff were not able to come up with an answer. I presume this is a product sufficiently well known to the previous speakers, and I should get back to the point, namely, that last summer Canadian consumers were experiencing difficulties in obtaining the necessary fittings for jars used in home canning.
Housewives, were forced at that time to curtail and, in some cases, abandon their preserving of fruits and vegetables due to the shortage. While it was not possible to

ease the supply problem for the 1974 canning season, the government is doing everything it can to ensure that this serious problem does not occur again.
A review of the events that transpired last summer concerning the shortage of jar lids and the reason contributing to the shortage would, perhaps, put this situation into perspective.
It became apparent during the canning season in the summer of 1974 that there were not sufficient jar lids to meet consumer demand. Consumers who were faced with increasing commodity prices, in an effort to economize had turned more and more to home canning. This, in turn, produced a vastly increased demand for the canning lids.
At the same time, tinplate, the major component of the lids, was in very short supply throughout the North American continent. For this reason supplies were being allocated to manufacturers on the basis of their previous years' purchases. Additional quantities of materials were not available to them from their regular suppliers.
In order to plan 1974 production lines, companies had forecast 1974 sales late in 1973. These forecasts were based on 1973 figures, plus an anticipated increase. Their production based on these projections, unfortunately, turned out to be completely inadequate to supply the unprecedented demand.
Under normal circumstances distributors project sales for the coming year, and production schedules are based on those predictions, so that large inventories of a seasonal item will not remain at the end of a season. Should the anticipated increase be, for example, 20 per cent, and consumer demands materialize at 50 to 60 per cent, by the time those demands are really known it is too late to go back into production. This is the situation that occurred last year.
Complaints flowed in from consumers who had purchased or grown quantities of fruits and vegetables specifically for canning only to find they were unable to buy the necessary fittings. Because of the concern expressed by consumers and because of some statements being carried in the media, inquiries were made into the situation to determine what, in fact, had happened and what might be done to resolve the matter.
The vast majority of the complaints received were from British Columbia. And here there was an additional factor to consider. There are a number of sizes of jars and lids. Traditionally the west seems to show a preference for the wide-mouthed jars while the east uses a smaller size. The wide-mouthed jar requires a heavier gauge of tin plate which was not as readily available as regular gauge. This put a further pressure on already tight supplies.
The problem did not suffer from lack of attention. At the federal level the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Food Prices Review Board, as well as some individual members of parliament, were pursuing it with the companies concerned.
It was apparent from these discussions that manufacturers had seriously under estimated consumer demand, although they had fulfilled their projected shipments.
February 10,1975

However, by this time it was too late to alleviate the situation for the current season. Manufacturers could not obtain additional raw materials and go back into production of the jar lids. The only advice that could be given to consumers at that point was to place orders with the retailers who would probably be selling whatever supplies they received on a first come, first served, basis.
Suggestions came from some sources that a re-allocation of tin plate supplies would eliminate the shortage. However, with a fixed total supply it would have been necessary to reduce the allocation in some other area in order to increase it to manufacturers of the fittings, if indeed this action would have any effect on the situation at that time. It was obvious that consideration should be given instead to preventing a similar situation in 1975. One approach to preventing the same problem from occurring again was to encourage Canadian manufacturers to increase production so that British Columbia would not be as dependent on United States suppliers.
The suppliers for British Columbia are mainly two United States firms and, to a small degree, two firms located in eastern Canada. Because of the shortage in British Columbia many people assumed that the United States companies had ceased distribution to the province in favour of their United States markets. Information from these companies, however, indicated that in fact they had been shipping to British Columbia during the summer, and continued to do so during the fall. They met their projected sales but, again, were not able to supply lids over and above those projections.
In the meantime the British Columbia government also took a great interest in the problem because it seemed to be concentrated in that province. The Hon. Phyllis Young, British Columbia's Minister of Consumer Services, reporting on the shortage said:
Three basic factors have created an international shortage of lids. Firstly, consumers, hoping to ease the impact of food inflation, have increased greatly their demand for canning supplies, but have been unable to obtain adequate amounts of canning fittings. Secondly, canning lid manufacturers face the dilemma of a buoyant market for their product on the one hand, and relatively fixed and constraining allotments of tin plate for steel producers on the other. Finally, steel producers while facing unprecedented demands for tin plate, were hampered in meeting the market because of limited plant capacity.
There are very few firms in Canada that manufacture canning lids, and one Canadian company that attempted several years ago to penetrate the British Columbia market was unsuccessful. In assessing their failure, it was their view that British Columbia consumers had developed such a brand loyalty to the American fittings that it was difficult to persuade them to switch to something else. I find this quite interesting in that we are discussing what was at first assumed, namely, that a diminution in importation of American materials to Canada was causing our problem.
However, based on last summer's experience this company thinks British Columbia consumers might now be more receptive to its product. Accordingly, they have increased their production capacity substantially and they have an assured source of tin plate for the coming year. With this volume of production they are in a position to supply the entire Canadian market, which would effec-
Income Tax
tively reduce the reliance of British Columbia Consumers on their United States suppliers.
It would appear, therefore, that the prognosis for 1975 is positive, and that there should not be a recurrence of last year's problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole, and on the amendment thereto (Mr. Lawrence) (p. 2977).
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, before the supper break I had started to make a few observations and comments about Bill C-49 which is before the House at the moment. I was expressing particular concern about that part of the bill which dealt with corporate taxation and specifically with resource corporation taxation, and I was expressing some concern about the manner in which we proceed to give all sorts of tax incentives, write-offs and depletion allowances to enable corporations, mostly foreign owned, to move into the resource sector of Canada's economy and, so to speak, rip off the benefits of the resource sector.
I was making comments on the latest scandalous situation, the Syncrude project, and I was comparing it with the situation in the Sudbury basin, which is a landmark for all those who are concerned about the manner in which the resource sector is developed and the kind of waste that. is left in its wake.
Today in the Sudbury basin we see very vividly the results, partly of ignorant action but mostly of deliberate action, having full knowledge of its effect on land, sea, air and human life. The Sudbury basin is a living example to all who advocate growth for growth's sake, and growth at any price. We see the terrain denuded of vegetation, and the effects of erosion reducing the landscape to long stretches of exposed rock with clay valleys between. We see lakes which literally jumped with fish at one time now silent, and with an acid content which defies even the must uncomplicated marine life. We see a soil rained on by S02 belching from the Falconbridge stacks and the Inco superstack 24 hours per day, seven days per week.
The result of this bombardment is that whatever arable land there was became acid. In the Sudbury district we were noted for the best potatoes grown anywhere in Canada. As a matter of fact, Sudbury district won potato championships for many consecutive years. Now the land

February 10,1975
Income Tax
requires great amounts of fertilizer and liming to revitalize the soil, and this has made farming uneconomic.
We now have some knowledge of the results of the mixture of S02 and water vapour, H20, which is the formation of sulphurous acid, H2S03. When the ceiling is low and water vapour is held close to the surface of the land, the S02 combines with it, resulting in what is called a killer fog, a combination of water vapour, sulphurous acid and sulphur dioxide. This chemical interaction also takes place within the rivers and lakes of the district's watershed, resulting in the high acidity which I have already mentioned.


An hon. Member:: This is not Jeanne Sauve's bill.


John R. Rodriguez: I will get to Jeanne Sauve's bill.
Indeed, those who visit our community invariably comment on its moonscape appearance. As a matter of fact the U.S. space program sent moonbound astronauts to the Sudbury basin to practise manoeuvres for their projected moon landing. Yes, Mr. Speaker, for a week American spacemen, in complete regalia, were walking around collecting lunar rock samples. It was stated at the time that there was no other area on earth so closely resembling the surface of the moon.
We are now faced with the formidable task of cleaning up this mess. The taxpayers are shouldering the lion's share of the clean-up, as well as having faced grave hazards to their health over the years. Needless to say, none of this could have happened if there was not acquiescent co-operation from governments, and in the case of the Sudbury district particularly, that of the Tory government. It was a government which was interested strictly in growth without adequate consideration for the ecological and social consequences.
It is fairly obvious that the two corporate multinational giants, Inco and Falconbridge, saw too many levels of government expressing concern for the social and economic consequences to the community as interference in the operation of their businesses. What experience have we to date concerning when the exploiting corporations have dealt exclusively with one level of government?
We have, in Ontario, amendments to the Mining Act which prohibit individuals or groups of individuals from prosecuting Inco or Falconbridge for damage to their property or health as a result of pollution. We have had inadequate pollution monitoring, and a dragging of feet in the cleaning up of obvious hazards due to pollution. We have had inadequate reforestation programs, and whatever attempts are made are initiated by the department of natural resources. One would think that the government and people of Canada would learn from past mistakes.
It is hard to look at the Sudbury experience with pride. Every one of us ought to feel somewhat ashamed for having permitted short-term gains to blind us to consequences. Today, we of the Sudbury basin are living with the results of short-term goals and are striving to rebuild our ravaged environment. Ask anyone from the basin, and he will warn you of the foolhardiness of unplanned resource development.

Why is this government so numbskulled about tar sands development in Alberta, in light of the Sudbury experience? Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) not aware of the ecological hazards of the Syncrude project? Then, let me inform him.
The Syncrude project involves what is considered to be the world's largest strip mining project. Every hour 13,000 tons of tar sand is scooped up for processing. Need I say more? Imagine not only Syncrude but several other projects doing the same thing. Is the minister not aware of the fact that strip mining is probably the most controversial issue involving conservationists around the world? In some progressive states strip mining has been outlawed.
After the tar sands have been scooped up, a hot water process is used to separate the oil from the sand. This produces large quantities of waste material which will necessitate the building of a tailings pond. We have several such tailings ponds in the Sudbury basin, and we know what they can do. In the Syncrude case the pond will be a 9.3 square mile reservoir, highly toxic and covered with a layer of oil.
The Syncrude project is in the path of four major fly-ways of Canada. Each year millions of water fowl fly over the site en route to their breeding grounds in the Peace-Athabasca delta. Moreover, because of the temperature in the tailings pond, it will be late to freeze and early to thaw, and will therefore be an attraction for late migratory species. The minister of the environment for the province of Alberta has admitted on the floor of his legislature that 30 ducks have perished on a three-acre tailings pond on the Syncrude site. Projections would lead us to conclude that a 9.3 square mile tailings pond would kill about
60,000	water fowl each and every year.
If the minister still has reservations about the severity of the impact of these facts, may I also point out to him that several of the species using the Peace-Athabasca flight paths are currently on the endangered species list and, hence, under federal government protection. As a matter of fact, a study on migratory water fowl on the Syncrude tar sands lease, dated 1973, lists the whooping crane as one of the birds observed on the tar sands lease. In addition, the whistling swan and the Ross goose are also known to inhabit the area.
Furthermore, the tailings pond represents additional hazards to the Athabasca River and delta. There is the perennial danger of ruptured dikes and seepage into the river bed; there have already been two oil spills from the Great Canadian Tar Sands which have reached the delta. What steps have been taken to guard against similar incidents by Syncrude? What studies have been taken to assess the effects on the delicate balance of the delta? What are the implications when other Syncrude-type plants are built in that area?
In addition, the water for the separation process is drawn from the river. Three and a half million gallons per hour will be diverted by Syncrude. Extend this volume upwards when other Syncrude-type plants are constructed in this area-it boggles the mind. Here we sit in Ottawa, not fully comprehending the Frankenstein monster we are about to create. Apart from a share in the ownership of the Syncrude project, the federal government has additional responsibility as defined in the Migratory Birds Conven-
February 10, 1975

tion Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It is difficult for anyone to conceive of the government as being so anxious for economic growth that it would turn its back on its own statutory responsibilities.
As if destruction of our water fowl and waterways is not enough, the problems will encompass plant life and possibly human life. Syncrude's coke burner complex and its sulphur plant will spew 287 tons of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere each day, apparently seven times more than would be spewed out if the plant were using the best pollution abatement material. Indeed, the sulphur dioxide discharge could be reduced to as little as 40 tons per day if the company would employ pollution abatement devices recommended by federal officials of the Department of the Environment.
As a matter of record, the consortium refused to allow federal officials to inspect their coke burner, saying that it was an innovation device developed by Esso research. The effects of heavy sulphur dioxide pollution in such a delicate sub-Arctic environment would be even more disastrous than we experienced in the Sudbury basin. What Syncrude and the other plants will be doing is creating a wasteland never before experienced by mankind. I am sure the minister is well aware of the nightmare of ecological dangers this project poses unless, of course, cabinet ministers do not speak to each other. In any case, the federal Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) in a letter to Hon. J. Yurko, the Alberta provincial minister of the environment, raised many questions and severe warnings with regard to this project.
Let me reveal to the House the concern of the Minister of the Environment. She wrote the following letter to the Minister of the Environment of Alberta:
In response to your request dated October 10,1973,1 am enclosing 100 copies of my department's comments on the Syncrude Environmental Impact Assessment.
In the context of the incomplete information provided by Syncrude Canada Limited in the documents comprising the impact assessment, and the confidentiality of tar sands process technology, the comments presented in this report must not be considered to represent a thorough review of the subject. It does appear however, from an examination of the available information, that Syncrude has failed to appreciate the real scope of environmental concerns and has also failed to address the question of environmental protection in either a realistic or an adequate manner.
The areas of specific concern relate to the management and control of waste waters and gaseous emissions; the impact of the development of fisheries and migratory birds; the need for environmental emergency planning; and eventual rehabilitation of the site.
In view of our mutual interests in this matter from the standpoint of both... of environmental quality and legislative responsibilities incumbent upon both federal and provincial governments, I believe it is necessary for our respective departments to jointly determine what further steps are needed in order to satisfy environmental concerns. It may be necessary to meet with Syncrude at a later date in order to resolve any outsdanding difficulties. I will request the Regional director of the Environmental Protection Service... to pursue discussions with your officials at the earliest possible date to further consider the specific concerns identified.
To reiterate, Syncrude's documentation is deficient in detailed information in many areas of environmental concern and we believe that there is a likelihood for major environmental damage ...
Please accept my sincere thanks for this opportunity to review and comment on the Syncrude documentation.
It becomes most understandable why companies like Inio, Falconbridge and the oil companies prefer dealing
Income Tax
with the provincial level of government, and only that level.
I understand that the federal government and the provincial government of Alberta are almost ready to reach agreement and let Alberta go ahead and deal with the Syncrude partners. This would be a grave abdication of federal responsibility, in other words, another sell-out to the multinational corporations. Of course this should not surprise any Canadian in the least because of the recent remarks by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as reported in the Montreal Gazette of February 10. Answering a question on a television program, the minister said, as reported:
-I'd have to say, of course, that this presents the classic conundrum that a decision maker always has-that there is the environmental tradeoff against the oil supply tradeoff.
Not only does this government not have a national energy policy it does not have a national environmental policy. In the face of such reactionary stopgap measures, I suggest that the minister read his energy conservation booklet for students, which says in part:
British inventor Harold Bate cooks up batches of methane gas from pig manure in a gas-digester in his backyard.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, when we can expect to invite Mr. Bate to install his gas-digester in front of the cabinet benches. It would probably be the most important contribution the cabinet could make to the energy crisis.
This is only one example in a long line of incomplete approaches to the problems facing the Canadian people. As I stated earlier, governments react to these crises in an ad hoc manner. They move from crisis to crisis. We had a housing crisis. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) came out with band-aid programs, trying to put plasters on the sores. We have an ongoing transportation mess. It has worsened since the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) took over.
As far as the area of taxation is concerned, the old songs are all true. We have a taxation policy which encourages corporations to take more from the economy of Canada than those who own the resources have a right to expect them to take.


An hon. Member:: Now you are on familiar ground.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, I am. That has been the experience every time we have had a Liberal or Tory government. When the people of Canada honestly thought there was an alternative to those sitting in the government benches, after a few months in office they realized that the Tories were just more of the same.
The Liberals and the Tories have given away the resources of this country. They have given away the birthright of the Canadian people for a pittance. They only look at the short-term. They wear blinkers. They do not look at the long-term results for the people of this country.


An hon. Member:: Come to B.C.


John R. Rodriguez: I would love to go to B.C. That province has a fantastic government. It is finally wresting control from the small clique of multinational corporations and

February 10,1975
Income Tax
putting it where it belongs-in the hands of the people. Indeed the premier of Alberta ought to take a page out of the book of the premier of British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: That is a book of jokes.


John R. Rodriguez: The biggest jokers are those who think that, by giving concessions to multinational corporations to come into this country, they are doing a favour to the Canadian people. They can leave. The resources can stay. They can be developed when we have the money. Our resources are being depleted. Once removed from the ground, they cannot be put back.
This taxation bill continues the time honoured process developed by the Liberal party and copied by the Tories when they are in power which, thank heavens, is very seldom. Unless the government takes the steps advocated by my party, we will continue to have a sell-out and rip-off with regard to our resources.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in talking about Bill C-49 one thing is obvious. That is that the question we are talking about at this point is clearly singular, not in terms of the bill itself but in terms of the question that is before the House at this moment.
What is before the House is really an issue of government growth and government spending. It is a case of a growing government that is becoming a cancer to the Canadian society, a cancer that is so big that the Canadian populace simply cannot keep pace with it.
Look at what has been happening in recent years to the federal government. The federal government is taxing the Canadian people at a rate of over $4 million an hour. While one might ask how does that interpolate into the government's attitude and the government's reflection toward people? When you see a government with the kind of growth this government has had through the last decade, it means the government has taken the attitude that it knows what is best for people. It is the kind of government that puts people into the position of subjects rather than citizens, a government that shows a lack of trust in people.
In my remarks this evening I want to dare this government to cut taxes. I dare it to give the people of this country a chance to show that they can run their own affairs. I dare it to reduce taxes even further than it indicated the other night.
When some members spoke specifically on that issue this afternoon, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) responded by doing his "Liberal two-step". The minister stated that they are making it a 7 per cent tax cut. He did that by averaging some figures. However, he is the kind of minister who would put his head in a firebox, his feet on a block of ice and claim that, on the average, he feels pretty good.
If we look at the increases in taxation that have taken place since the present Minister of Finance took over, it is obvious that taxes have increased at such a rate that the amount of the decrease the government is talking about is virtually insignificant. Since 1972 personal income tax has risen by 105 per cent. To suggest to the Canadian people that it will be decreased by 7 per cent is really an insig-

nificant factor. It is certainly insignificant when we think of some of the dire conditions in this inflationary society, or when we look at some of the people who will not be assisted by this program at all.
We are in a situation where the government is taxing the Canadian people at the rate of $4 million an hour. More important, this is a government that is over-taxing the people, and I stress the word over, at the rate of $3 million per day for each of the 365 days of the year. That means a government surplus of money is being built up, and all that leads to is increases in government programs.
If there is anything that we, as a society, need to reverse it is the notion that the citizens of this country are subordinate to the government. If we look at the statistics for the rate of federal growth in this country, the facts are obvious. If we are to have democracy where we put trust in, and have a belief in individual citizens, we must more and more reverse the trend of the mother government looking after the sibling citizens.
If you have trust in people, if you believe in them, you do not take the attitude that the government is the institution which looks after them and cares for all their needs. Obviously with the present situation we have to reverse the trend of taxes, not only for the basic principle to replace trust in people but because the government has gone to a position of over-taxing.
The minister said the government is taking in more than it needs. It must be mentioned here that the government is acting as a counter-incentive. The federal government is a killer of this society's motivation. Ministers have told us they will cut personal income tax by either 7 per cent or 3 per cent, depending on which way you calculate the figures. You can do it either way, depending on how you read the clause.
The amount of the cut is a pure mockery compared with recent tax increases. In the three years prior to this minister taking over, federal expenditures rose by 49 per cent to $14.8 billion. Since the present Finance Minister took over there has been a colossal jump and, forecast to the end of 1975, the increase will be 105 per cent to $28 billion. That is the kind of government growth we are talking about, a growth that is putting a stranglehold on people. It is insignificant to talk about reducing taxes by only 7 per cent when in fact that only represents between $60 and $150 for most taxpayers in this country. I suggest that is pure cookie crumbs.
I am afraid the minister is going to have to do a lot more in terms of trying to satisfy the Canadian people than simply to offer such a small tax incentive in such an inflationary period of time. I do not believe the Minister of Finance has the capacity to save the Canadian society with three little fishes and five loaves of bread. Perhaps this is not wholly the fault of the minister because we know that within the government there is another finance group, known as the group of seven, and that they perhaps have even more power than the Minister of Finance. While this country was at one time quite well noted for a former Group of Seven they weren't the same kind of psychedelic painters as these people who are painting the present Canadian economy.
February 10, 1975

What we are asking for, under the amendment we have proposed, is for an additional 5 per cent tax cut to that which has already been proposed. In response to the minister who said that the members of the Conservative party were reading that wrong, that they had already given at least that much of a tax cut, I simply want to draw the attention of the minister to the way the clause actually reads. I quote from page 2977 of Hansard for February 6, the last paragraph in the second column:
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-49 because it fails to provide for a further 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in 1975 and subsequent taxation years despite unprecedented government revenues and the resulting overtaxation by the government.
It is not a case that the opposition amendment called for only 5 per cent but, as specifically stated, we asked for a further 5 per cent decrease.
Let us take a look at the record of the government and the reason there should be a cutback, the reason there is a need to curtail the government, the kind of government which is a cancerous growth exercising a stranglehold on the Canadian society. In the three years since the government gave power into the hands of the Minister of Finance, inflation has risen from 2.9 per cent to 10.9 per cent. Moreover, though the present proposal is to reduce personal income tax by some 3 or 7 per cent, yet for the final quarter of 1974, the people of this country witnessed an increase in personal income tax of 28 per cent.
In the final quarter of last year we experienced an increase in income tax of 28 per cent and it is small cookies to hand out the notion to this society that we are doing great by cutting the taxes a mere 7 per cent. If members opposite are sincere about wanting to do something about putting the power of the Canadian people back with the people, they should stop overtaxing them and let them make their own decisions about those things that are important to them.
It may well be that the Minister of Finance is a David and they think he can kill the Goliath that is so inflated in this society, but he is going to have to load his sling shot with more than cookie crumbs. Since the Minister of Finance took office three years ago-and it is only three years ago-real growth in this country has been only 15 per cent. Government spending has gone up some 70 per cent in that same period of time. The money supply, however, was up 56 per cent; personal credit went up 82 per cent. More important, inflation rose 28 per cent and our trade balance worsened by $1,086,000,000-and all that in a period when the government chose to slap on to the Canadian people an increase in personal income tax of 105 per cent.
Now, after three years of his administration and an increase in personal income taxes of 105 per cent, the minister has the audacity to come forward and say he is going to cut income tax by 7 per cent. He then turns to the Canadian people and expects to get credit for his actions because he is making a proposal for a cut after he has increased it by 105 per cent. If the federal government doesn't take our amendment seriously I fully intend to recommend to my constituents that they claim the federal government as a dependant on this year's income tax
Income Tax
return. And they might do well to consider it as an institutionalized dependant. Certainly one has a lot of reason to wonder about its sanity when you have an increase of 105 per cent and expect credit because you are going to cut taxes a mere 7 per cent.
In this and the coming year it is the intention of the federal government to increase personal income tax collection to a total of $3.5 billion. It is able to do that because while on one hand it is cutting its percentage of taxation, in recent years the increases in salary amounts are such that the actual amount it collects is increased.
We have taken a look at some of the statistics showing the growth of the federal government. It might even wonder where it can cut back, but that is something it obviously has to do. A very clear example was before this House at the time the budget was brought down. It proposed to reduce the federal building tax from 11 to 5 per cent. One has to remember that to collect that amount it had a huge bureaucracy here in Ottawa, a bureaucracy which was there to collect all the data on virtually every two by four sold anywhere in Canada, a bureaucracy which recalls all the data about building materials across the country. All it has done by reducing the tax from 11 to 5 per cent has been to change the number from 11 to 5. The bureaucracy continues:
While that bureaucracy was continuing, the government decided to put in another bureaucracy. I am not sure what that implies; it must mean ministers have more friends. But what they are doing now is to have a $500 homeowner's grant for first-time home owners. This means they need a whole group of people chasing across Canada interviewing people to see whether or not this is the first time they have ever built a home. So, instead of reducing or wiping out the whole of the 11 per cent of building materials tax, doing away with a whole bureaucracy, cutting some of the income tax the country is bringing in to the federal coffers, they really just changed the number, made an insignificant reduction in building tax and then added on another bureaucracy-more people chasing around the country trying to analyze and take a look at something which, to quote the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), is obviously a mess.
All I can say, then, is that if the government thinks it is doing something significant by reducing income tax by the mere percentage it has aspired to, then I dare the Minister of Finance to come to my constituency and stand toe to toe with the ranchers and farmers there and-


Mr. Epp:: A verbal shoot-out.


Arnold John Malone: A good shoot-out, not just a verbal one. He should come and tell those farmers that a reduction of $100 or $150 is going to have a significant effect in a country where beef prices are now only about 50 per cent of what they should be, and where farmers are operating well below production costs.
I dare the minister to go to a constituency where machinery prices have increased at the rate of 30 per cent across the last couple of years and to tell the people that a $150 saving is anything significant. I dare him to stand eye to eye with the old age pensioner who does not even pay

February 10, 1975
Income Tax
taxes, and explain what kind of value it will have in his plight. This bill will have an insignificant effect in many critical areas facing our society today.
Finally, I want to make a few comments about the fact that this tax relief will have only limited effect. While we support the principle of the tax relief, the point is that it is just not enough in view of the fact that this government has grown too big, almost so big that it cannot handle itself. It is about time that we gave Canada back to the people. Our people believe that they can manage their own affairs, and this is done by cutting taxes.
When speaking on this bill on Thursday, as reported at page 2978 of Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) said this:
If we reduce taxes we automatically decrease the amount of revenue the government has entitlement to under the tax laws.
He was speaking to the amendment, and that is really exactly the point and he is very observant. I think that is all we are speaking of here tonight. Decreasing government revenue is how we are able to control government spending. We cannot control something that spends so wastefully and without thought unless we decrease revenue. Why do we not give the people of this country their money back, because just by chance they might be able to use it better than the government can?
I should like to make a short mention of the notion of royalties. I do not intend to expound upon that subject this evening, since I am sure the bill will be going into committee of the whole at which time there will be a chance for some extended debate on it and how it affects royalties, but the federal government seems to be taking the view that the provinces are incapable of managing their own affairs. I therefore think it behooves us at this time to put on the record the fact that the government of the day is grabbing for power by ripping-away at the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: I think that all the critics on the other side are after the same crumb, but let me tell them that there has been real disparity amoung the people of this country both in the east and west. There has been a real grab for power, for central control in order to manage this country. Anyone who knows anything about human beings, human motivation and human incentive, knows that the closer to the grass roots you put the power, the better the people can manage their own affairs. Or you can centralize government, and in this regard the government's treatment of royalties is but one example. However, I think we can leave this subject for detailed discussion later on; the point we are discussing this evening is simple and clear.
The government is ripping from the people too many dollars which are being spent too loosely. It is time to turn money back to the people. I dare the government to let the people of this country prove to them that they can manage their money just as well as this big piece of machinery.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this budget bill. I was not able to speak on the debate on the budget. I think the amendment before the House presented by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) is a

timely one. It calls for the members of the House to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the taxpayers of Canada should be given some break in the government's spending policy.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is now crossing the country preaching restraint, but his budget, of which this bill is part, certainly is no example of restraint. It reflects an increase in government spending of about 25 per cent in one year, and is a very bad example to Canadians in general regarding how they should behave. When one hears news reports about certain parts of the public service rejecting 26 per cent increases over a two year period, one can easily see where the example comes and how people are acting on it.
Reference was made earlier today to the creation in the Prime Minister's office of a new board of economists-as my hon. friend from Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) described them, a new group of seven. It is quite clear that some extra supervision is required of the economic affairs of the country, since the Minister of Finance does not seem to be able to perform in the way he talks. The question is whether this new group of seven wise men will be able to come up with anything more concrete in the economic management of this country.
I feel it must be of concern to all members that there are now 16,000 people working in the public service of Canada who earn more than $20,000 a year. Over the last five or six years there has been an increase of 1,300 per cent. Which is no example of restraint by any manner of speaking.
I agree with other hon. members who say that the only way you are going to attack the problem is by cutting off the supply of money or giving some concrete effect to what most members, I believe, feel should happen. The government just does not seem to listen to words; words do not seem to be effective. Each year of the six and a half years I have been here there has been a tremendous increase in the spending habits of government.
I made reference to the fact that there has been a huge increase in the upper levels of bureaucracy, but you can also find it at the local level. For example, the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture has an office in the city of Drumheller. For the last 30 years or so it has been housed in the federal public building in Drumheller. Then somebody got the bright idea that the accommodation there was no longer satisfactory, even though the staff employed in the office were quite happy with the space they had. So what does the government go and do? It has to go and rent commercial space at the rate of $300 a month for housing this office, in opposition to the wishes of the staff, and where there is no walk-in trade at the ground level. I am just wondering what those on the treasury benches are doing with the money that they ask us to vote them when they behave in this way, when the staff of the office do not want to move but are forced to, at a great increase in cost to the taxpayers, but without providing any additional service.
As far as I am concerned as a member for Alberta, the most difficult part of this budget is that part which indicates how the federal government proposes to treat the resource producing provinces. The minister has devoted
February 10, 1975

much time to the argument that this involves only money and really does not involve control of resources. The minister has suggested the government must have taxing room in respect of the matter of resource taxation. However, as a result of these tax proposals we seem to see an attempt to rewrite the law in a back-handed way.
Up until 1930 the resources of the prairie provinces belonged to the federal government, and up to that time those provinces were treated as second class in comparison with the other provinces in Confederation. It took a number of years, and pressure from western members, exemplified by Progressive Conservatives, to force the federal government to treat the prairie provinces as it treated other members of Confederation.
When the prairie provinces took over in respect of resources, particularly petroleum, it was found that the federal government had been a very poor manager and had made terrible mistakes in the area of conservation. The result was that new conservation laws had to be developed. It is a recognized fact that the province of Alberta now has the best conservation laws in relation to oil and gas of any jurisdiction in the world. This indicates that the province knows how to develop these resources, whereas the evidence shows that the federal government does not.	.
We now know that we will be running out of oil and gas within a short period of time without rapid development of the Arctic and offshore areas. In spite of that the federal government refuses to develop any land use regulations or rules regarding royalties in their relationship to the development of resources in these areas. This government sits on its hands in this regard, with the result that these resources are not being developed, and thus we will be forced into an energy supply shortage within a few years.
It is very interesting to note that many of our supply problems miraculously disappeared over the weekend. I suggest that is the case only in the mind of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). The fact is that we are facing a shortfall situation in respect of petroleum supplies, and the government will not take the necessary action to come to grips with the situation. The minister suggests that the federal government is only involved in respect of the revenue, and is not interested in jurisdiction. I disagree with him.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have made little effort to reach any accommodation of attitude with the western provinces in the field of energy and resources. I note that the Prime Minister will be meeting with the Premier of Alberta tomorrow in Lethbridge. It will be interesting to see if any effort toward accommodation is forthcoming. I am rather pessimistic in that regard, but, hopeful, nevertheless.
It is no secret to any western Canadian in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia that had the oil and gas been found in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the treatment afforded by the federal government would have been different. I suggest there would have been long periods of negotiation and meaningful consultation, rather than the kind of consultation we have become accustomed to when dealing with federal ministers.
Income Tax
It is interesting to note that the province of Quebec in many respects is acting like a separate state when dealing with foreign government. I have in mind the negotiations between the province of Quebec and France in dealing with nuclear materials. I observed in the Saturday, February 8, edition of the Toronto Star a claim by Richard Gwyn that Mr. Bourassa introduced a rather interesting piece of legislation in his province just before Christmas. This bill lost much of its newsworthiness when that legislature became involved in discussions about members' pay. Mr. Gwyn had this to say in his column of that date:
The second bill is quite new. It grants diplomatic immunity to representatives of foreign governments in Quebec and to the staff of the International Civil Aviation Organization which is headquartered in Quebec. All these consuls-general and ICAO staffers already enjoy diplomatic immunity, granted by Ottawa. The kicker is in Section 23: "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall also be entitled to restrict the application of this act with regard to consular officers of foreign states which refuse to grant to Quebec representatives advantages similar to those granted by the act."
Quebec thus claims the right to withhold diplomatic immunity already granted by Ottawa if countries with consuls-general in the province refuse to grant the same immunity to Quebec representatives abroad.
It is very interesting to note that the Premier of Quebec offered to go abroad to make energy deals, backing them up with his own consular arrangements, with the feeling that Ottawa is merely the keeper of the gate. This seems to be a different approach by the federal government to the approach it has adopted in developing the resources of western provinces.
I have already pointed out in this connection that it took a very long time for the western provinces to obtain control of their own natural resources. Since that time those provinces have continually had to fight to retain control. I suggest this budget is another step in that process. Before this budget is reduced to legislative form I hope another look will be taken at the government's approach and its treatment of natural resources.
The main reason there has not been much discussion about resources until recently is that these resources were not of much value. In fact great incentives had to be given to ensure their development. We learned, during our discussion of the white paper on taxation and the subsequent legislation which gave us the so-called tax reform bill two or three years ago, that we had to give foreign owned oil companies the same depletion allowances they are given in the United States in order to compete with petroleum energy sources in the Middle East. Whether or not we would have been better off not to have given these depletion allowances is debatable, but the fact is that at the time it appeared they were required and, as a result, we were turned into a country that was self sufficient in petroleum resources. As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we cannot stand prosperity because we are now going the other way. Apart from having poor policies, which can be lived with sometimes, we have no policy in large areas of our potential resource development, and that is an impossible situation.
When resource prices started to rise a demand was made by the federal government that the provinces should do more to husband the product of resources for their

February 10, 1975
Income Tax
requirements. I can well remember listening to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources saying that if the western provinces did not increase their royalties, the federal government would have to step in to protect its citizens and take measures to increase the government's take from the producing companies.
I suppose it was with a fair amount of chagrin that after the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan took the minister's advice and more or less tore up their contracts and imposed new rules for these producing companies that gave them a larger take, they found the federal government saying that the provinces were now encroaching too much in the field of federal taxation, and for this reason the federal government would have to make it impossible for royalty payments to be deductible from income. Nevertheless, there has been a contest for the spoils of these resources between the federal and provincial governments, and it behooves us to question who should get the large amounts of money involved, and who has the largest commitments? The Minister of Finance has had to tax the resource industry to prevent the unnecessary erosion of the federal power, but the whole history of our economic force in the last 30 years has been an accrual of the taxing power at the federal level at the expense of the provinces.
The provinces are in dire financial straits and they need more taxing power. The minister knows this; he has had several meetings with them. One of the reasons why they are in such dire financial straits is that they have had costly social programs foisted on them by this administration, and the preceding Pearson administration, in the area of health, welfare and education. Recently, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has been doing all he can to unload as many of these programs on the provinces as possible, at the same time offering them the minimum in tax concessions. The huge expansion of government tax revenue alone more than offsets any great haste to settle the issue with the provinces, because the federal government has had this tremendous amount of money coming in, as we have heard-more than $3 million a day excess of income over expense in the last month that was reported, December, 1974.
So what has come out of this confrontation? Well, we have hastened the arrival of the day when Canada will be short of oil and when we will have to import more oil than we produce. The added announcement that oil exports to the United States must be cut back and, in the ultimate, cease, makes it obvious that we face a tremendous balance of payments problem in the coming years. In this connection we note that the Americans have been more or less saying that the sky is falling when they have a $3 billion merchandise account deficit. It is interesting to note that we will have a $2 billion deficit, a country one-tenth the size of the United States.
In its haste to club western provinces into submission the federal government has considerably reduced the number of golden eggs that the resource industry will lay. We have seen the recent example of Atlantic Richfield pulling out of the Syncrude project. The problem now appears to have been resolved by the fact that the various governments, the federal and the Alberta and Ontario governments, will contribute at least half a billion dollars. But apart from that, statistics also show us that the oil

industry is moving out. The statistics make dismal reading when one considers that the number of oil drilling rigs have been reduced in this country from 240 to 140 in the space of one year.
Surely the minister cannot call his action a magnificent victory for federalism. It is now obvious to all western Canadians, and to all provinces in fact, that they should leave their resources in the ground until economic conditions call for them to be brought out. The alternative is that if they are exploited, the federal government will commandeer all the profits.
The minister stated that the national oil policy, which was instituted in this country in the early 1960s and which reserved the part of Canada which was west of the Ottawa Valley line for Canadian produced oil, had cost Canadians $500 million. The assumption was that it was mainly those Canadians living in Ontario west of the Ottawa valley line who had put up that money. I think that figure should be put in perspective. It is also a fact that during that same time the prairie provinces paid several hundreds of millions of dollars each year supporting the tariff structure in this country, of which the province of Ontario was the main beneficiary. As a result of the national oil policy I do not think Ontario paid too much for its security of supply.
But there are many factors relating to the economic management of the country that I think could be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. One thing that certainly concerns my constituents, and many other people to whom I have talked, is what the government will do concerning the conversion to the metric system. It will cost an awful lot of money. I do not think that this conversion is in accordance with the policy of restraint. The government appears to be pressing ahead with the introduction of the metric system at a time when we should be encouraging a lower cost economy rather than adding hidden costs that will make it that much more difficult for us to produce goods at an economical price.
Basically the government has not practised what it preached. It has not been showing any restraint. I am in sympathy with the amendment which asks hon. members to put their votes, where their mouths are when they talk about government spending, and actually show that they feel that the government has too much money and could well do with less for the good of itself as well as the Canadian people, and I would ask for support for the amendment.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-49, the income tax bill which is now before the House, and I am equally pleased to see so many government members in their places willing to listen to words of wisdom. I always have a very good audience among the Liberals when I speak. The Tory benches are a bit thin, but that is usual.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Reginald Cyril Symes: There is not much hope for them. The income tax bill before us can be faulted on many grounds, one of which is that it does more for corporations than for
February 10, 1975

individual Canadians in this day of rising costs. I would like to concentrate on the resource aspects of this bill, the attempts by the government to stimulate, in its words, the oil industry in this country, and also talk about how the resource tax part of the bill relates to development of the industry, especially the Syncrude project, which is so vital and which concerns so many Canadians.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) brought in his budget of May 6, and subsequently on November 18, and the resource industry saw the provisions on taxation, there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth by the multinational oil companies which have their subsidiaries here in Canada. The corporate executives and the directors of Imperial Oil and Gulf were complaining that the industry was being brought to its knees, that it could not afford to continue exploration and development in the oil reserves, and their wailing was so effective that the premier of Alberta hurriedly gave them an extra $200 million in tax concessions from his government. This government has held firm, to its credit, on to the non-deductibility of royalties in certain areas, but also has counterbalanced that by giving the oil companies 100 per cent writeoffs on oil exploration and avoided imposing the surtax on the oil companies, this despite record profit figures for the oil industry in Canada.
Quoting from the latest Globe and Mail quarterly survey of business we find that for the third quarter of 1974 all businesses surveyed had a profit increase averaging 28.4 per cent over the same period last year, but for western oils the profit increase for the same period was not 28.4 per cent, it was 103.1 per cent! For oil refining for the same period the increase in profit was 46.9 per cent.
For the first nine months of 1974 all businesses surveyed had profit increases averaging 38.8 per cent over the same period last year. For oil refining the profit increase in the same period was 68.3 per cent, while for western oils the profit increase was 109.6 per cent. Those are some dramatic percentage increases. In real dollar terms the figures are equally startling. For Gulf Oil for the first nine months of 1974 the after tax profit was $128.9 million. For Imperial Oil for the first nine months of 1974 the after tax profit was $252 million.
Despite the increase in provincial and federal government taxes on a barrel of oil, the oil companies are making more money than they ever have before. I would like very briefly to look at a few significant figures in the realm of price per barrel. I would like to look at the oil company return after royalties, taxes, operating costs, debt repayment, interest costs, and before capital investment and dividends are paid.
In 1973 the price for a barrel of crude oil in Canada was $3.80. The return to an oil company on this barrel of oil was $2.07. In 1974 before the November 18 budget the price per barrel of oil had almost doubled to $6.50, and the return to the oil company had gone up again. It was $2.50 prior to the budget. With the implementation of the November budget, and the price being still $6.50, the oil companies' return drops only slightly to $2.28 per barrel. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has indicated that the price of oil will be going up this spring. Predictions are that it will rise from $6.50 per
Income Tax
barrel to $8.50, and if it rises to $8.50, then the oil companies' return per barrel will go up to $3.13.
Despite the new tax proposals, the oil companies will still be making money hand over fist.


An hon. Member:: A hell of a lot of it.


Reginald Cyril Symes: So the oil companies cannot argue poverty in terms of their recent profit intake, but they say that they still do not have enough money, that they still do not have enough capital to develop the resources of this country.


An hon. Member:: Have you ever seen a barrel of oil?


John Edward Broadbent: I am looking at one right now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Reginald Cyril Symes: The Conservative members wallow in the oil and cannot see daylight. You can always tell when you hit a sensitive nerve by the noise coming from the Conservative benches.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the remarks of hon. members should be directed to the Chair.


Reginald Cyril Symes: As I was saying, the oil companies have been making extraordinary profits, yet they still have the gall to argue that they do not have enough capital.
In addition to allowing the oil companies to keep their large profits, the Liberal government has given them all kinds of tax concessions. Taxes the oil companies should pay are not collected by the federal government because there is in being a system of deferred taxes. For example, as at the end of 1973, Imperial Oil owed the federal government $226 million in deferred taxes. That amount has not been collected.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Reginald Cyril Symes: So Imperial, in addition to keeping its profits, has available to it the benefit of this kind of tax write-off. Gulf also owes the government deferred taxes amounting to $116 million; Texaco owes $50 million in deferred taxes; and Shell $122 million in deferred taxes. These oil companies owe the federal government over $500 million in deferred taxes. As if that were not enough, oil companies are given the advantage of fast write-off provisions, which they apply against exploration costs, and generous depreciation allowances. How can the oil companies of this country argue that they find it difficult to raise funds, considering the huge profits they have made and the tax concessions this government has given them for many years?
One must consider the activities of subsidiaries of oil companies in Canada as well as those of their parent companies in the United States. Imperial Oil, the subsidiary of Exxon, is not a poverty stricken branch company. Imperial has made money in Canada, and its parent, Exxon, has made profits which stagger the imagination. In 1973 the profits of Imperial's parent, Exxon, were $2.4 billion after taxes. In 1974 profits had risen to over $3

February 10, 1975
Income Tax
billion. The interesting part is that subsidiary oil companies which plead poverty in this country do not go to their parents for their capital funds. Where do they get their capital? From the federal government, from Canadian banking and financial institutions and, of course, from the Canadian consumer, who has been overcharged by the oil companies.
The November 18 budget continues the oil companies' tax concessions. They are to have a 100 per cent write-off for exploration expenses, and so on. Meanwhile the Canadian consumer must pay ever higher prices for the oil which heats his home and the gasoline which powers his automobile.
The government is relying on the oil industry to develop the resources of this country and for technical information. Consequently it has been misled as no government has been misled before. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the government listened to the multinational oil companies operating in Canada, that told it we had a surplus of oil, that we could export as much as we wanted, and that we had enough oil for the next 200 years. The government, lacking its own independent study, swallowed what the oil companies told it and permitted oil exports. Finally, the National Energy Board woke up and told us a few months ago that by 1979 this country will become a net importer of oil. The great panic developed.
The oil companies have manoeuvred the government into a position in which it has to go begging to the oil industry in order to develop future resources. Of course if the oil companies are to do that, there will be conditions- such as that they will sell oil at world prices, probably within the year, and that they are to have the right to unlimited exports, which the oil companies have enjoyed until recently.
So we see the sell-out of the 1950s and 1960s repeated as the government, searching desperately for oil, bows to the terms of the multinational oil companies. For example, let me refer to the multinational company blackmail tactics in the recent Syncrude deal. The government did not have the backbone to say to the companies, "At long last the resources of this country will be developed by Canadians, by the federal government in conjunction with provincial governments, as a public utility which is to serve Canadians."
Canadians would benefit from the point of view of lower prices and the point of view of future security of supply if our resource were developed publicly. The Syncrude deal is one of the greatest resource sell-outs this government has ever allowed, or is about to allow. Fortunately, ink has not been put to paper. The deal has not been signed, because the poker game at Winnipeg a week ago ended with a handshake. Our government and the oil companies talk in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars and trust each other because they are friends, which they are, and therefore feel they do not need any written agreement. So there is hope that if we can arouse Canadian public opinion to the kind of sell-out this is, the public can put pressure on the government to revise the terms.
The government failed to recognize the snow job which the Syncrude partners had been able to do in escalating the costs of the project. You see, it is to the advantage of the oil companies to escalate the costs of the Syncrude

project, because the higher goes the cost of the project, at least on the books, the greater will be the tax concessions and tax breaks available to the companies. If they can exaggerate the capital costs they will be able to bring about higher amortization and justify higher depreciation allowances, higher interest write-offs and pay less corporate income tax.
In 1963, when the Syncrude project was first envisaged, the plant which was to produce 100,000 barrels of oil a day was to cost $356 million. By 1971 that cost had risen to $430 million; by 1973, it had risen to $744 million. A few months ago the cost was estimated at $846 million; today, seven months later, it is estimated that the Syncrude project will cost $2.2 billion. There we see an incredible exaggeration in the escalation of costs.
If this had happened to a Crown corporation you can just imagine the shouts you would have heard from members of the Conservative and Liberal parties. They would accuse the company of inefficiency, mismanagement and, perhaps, even of corruption. They do not so accuse the oil companies. These multinational oil companies, these so-called experts, know their business and can escalate the costs of a project in seven months by several hundred per cent-yet there is no word of criticism. There is not even a hint of suspicion about this escalation.
The frightening part is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) went to Winnipeg a week ago Monday to talk to the oil companies. They intended only to ask the oil company partners to delay their decision to pull out of Syncrude. But that was not the plan of the oil companies. Their plan was to get a specific commitment from the government. The government was badgered into granting that. We repeatedly heard from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the government wanted to have studies done by the Alberta government before it would commit $1 to the Syncrude project. What happened on that fateful Monday in Winnipeg?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been listening to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) for the past 20 minutes. I do not believe he has once spoken to the amendment. I ask Your Honour to bring this to his attention so that we can get on with the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's point is, of course, very important. It is one with which the Chair always has difficulty. Hon. members know that we make more progress if we follow the rule of relevancy. It is, of course, difficult to cut deeply between a motion and an amendment. The line is set by members who open the debate to a much broader scope from one speech to the other. It is difficult to ask the Chair at one point in the debate to restrain one particular speaker. However, I would hope that the hon. member will at least once in a while refer to the amendment.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I know that members of the Conservative party do not like hearing exposes about how this government, through its tax policies, rips off the Canadian
February 10, 1975

people. However, I have the right to expose this kind of financial chicanery.
I was saying that the government went to Winnipeg only with the intention of getting the decision of the oil companies to postpone their plans for cancelling the project. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said he wanted studies. The Alberta government has done four studies on the cost aspect of the Syncrude project. One was done by Foster Associates, one by Hu Harries Economic Consultants, one an analysis by Price Waterhouse, and one an engineering feasibility study on cost projections by Loran International.
It is important for the Canadian public to know that this government, on that fateful Monday, did not have these four analyses of the Syncrude project as to cost.
The government committed $300 million and an open ended 15 per cent liability on any future cost over-run without the benefit of these studies. It went into the deal blindfolded. We learned from answers in the Alberta legislature that the federal government received the Loran International study late Sunday night. It did not have time to analyse it before the fateful decision was made on Monday. It received the Price Waterhouse analysis on Monday. The Foster report was mailed to the federal government from Edmonton on Monday night or Tuesday morning, after the Syncrude arrangement had been concluded. The federal government has not yet received the Harries study. If there is a better indication of a government working hand in hand with the oil companies, I do not know what it is.
There were adequate studies for the government to see what it was getting into, yet it succumbed to the blackmail of the multinational oil companies involved in the Syncrude project.
Here we have a plan. Any questioning person would want to know why it increased from an original $356 million to over $2 billion in 12 years and escalated from $846 million to $2.2 billion in the past seven months. However, the government accepted the figures of the same multinational oil companies as to the amounts of oil we had in this country throughout the fifties and sixties. How did these companies pull the wool over the eyes of the gold dust twins on the front benches?
This cannot be put down to natural inflation. Shell Oil Company computed in its study of the oil sands development that a capital cost inflation rate of 5 per cent per year would be considered reasonable. In no way can the kind of cost escalation which I have just described fall into that pattern.
The other reason why there has been such a cost escalation is that the oil company partners of Syncrude do not buy the capital items needed to build the Syncrude plant competitively on the open market. They buy from their subsidiaries and affiliated corporations, which deliberately inflate the prices.
The contractor for the Syncrude project is the famous or infamous American construction company, Bechtel Corporation, the same corporation Premier Bourassa hired to destroy the environment of James Bay. Bechtel Corporation is the main contractor. It buys from its subsidiaries capital equipment at inflated prices and pays inflated
Income Tax
engineering fees. It is also reported that Bechtel is 36 per cent owned by Exxon, which is the parent company of Imperial Oil, one of the partners in the Syncrude project.
There is a nice trading arrangement going on between the oil Company partners of Syncrude to inflate deliberately the price of the project in order to bring the government running with cash to the oil companies. The federal government has accepted the oil companies' figures. How can the oil companies be trusted in view of their past behaviour? These companies have hoodwinked the government and the Canadian people.
The public relations aspect of this project is incredible. A few weeks ago we heard that Atlantic Richfield was pulling out of the scheme because costs had escalated away beyond proportion. Atlantic Richfield did not pull out of Syncrude because of escalating costs. It pulled out because it does not have any refineries in Canada. It could not get a commitment from the government for unlimited export rights in order to send oil to its refineries in the United States. That is why it pulled out, not because of escalating costs. They were on the inside. They know the cost escalation is phony.
For 15 per cent ownership of Syncrude the federal government is putting up $300 million in equity funds. For 10 per cent equity, Alberta is putting up $200 million, plus giving the oil companies $200 million in loans, and building for them a $600 million pipeline and power plant. The Conservative government of Ontario has likewise been hoodwinked. It is very easy to hoodwink provincial Conservative governments. For 5 per cent equity the Ontario government is putting up $100 million. The private companies will control 70 per cent of the Syncrude project.
The federal government has committed itself to 15 per cent of the cost over-run. If the pattern of escalation which I have described continues for the next few years, the government will be paying hand over fist for the operating cost of the plant and will not have any kind of majority control or input in the decision-making process. In the light of this situation it seems the time is long overdue when the federal and provincial governments should take over full public ownership.
As if giving them money is not enough, the Minister of Finance announced in his November budget, or subsequently, that Syncrude would be exempt from the tax provisions in the most recent budget. This means that what the oil companies invest in Syncrude can be written off against profits from other operations, such as heating oil or gasoline production. In other words, if Imperial Oil invests $300 million in Syncrude, under the tax system applicable to them they will be able to write off $400 million against their profits from other operations. If that is not a rip-off of monumental proportions, I don't know what is.
It might sound at first hearing as though the government were getting tough in the November budget, but if you read the fine print you will see what is really going on in the corporation tax field. The government is propping up the multinational companies with public funds without being able to exercise any real measure of control over their activities.

February 10, 1975
Income Tax
We are subsidizing the oil companies through government funds and through tax incentives, and the bulk of the advantage goes to the parent companies rather than to Canadian companies. If we are putting up capital we should get the benefit, we should be able to exert control so that we could direct policy as well as control price.
When we advocate public ownership, as has been done in a number of enlightened countries, government spokesmen argue that public ownership is not possible because it would cost too much-it is not possible to find $2.2 for Syncrude. First, we challenge the assumption that the project would cost $2.2 billion; we would carry out a proper cost analysis before buying it out. The government of Quebec does not find any difficulty raising $14 billion for the James Bay project; Alberta finds no difficulty in raising $1 billion to bail out the oil industry in that province.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, on February 6 when we were studying the same bill I rose to say that in my opinion the member who had the floor at that time, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), was not discussing the subject matter of Bill C-49. I am expressing now what I believe to be the majority view of members present in this chamber when I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) is doing the same. What he is now discussing is a political philosophy; he is advocating public ownership as opposed to private ownership. That is what he is basically discussing though it is a matter he ought to have discussed when we were considering Bill C-32.
This bill, Bill C-49, has been in the House for a long period. Everyone is anxious for its passage, and I wish the hon. member would turn his attention to something which is germane to the particular legislation we are considering.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The points I am making are obviously getting to members on the Liberal benches. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) raised the same canard last Thursday, but Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was in order, and I am sure the same circumstances apply.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, there is a point of order before you. When a bunch of blatant hypocrites in a minority party try to tell the Speaker of the House what to rule, I think we should form a united force here and make sure we put those guys in their place.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is rule 47A.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member was speaking on the amendment to the bill, and it is difficult to disassociate the amendment from the bill. If he wishes to speak on the amendment we shall listen to him.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is interesting to see Conservative and Liberal members leap to each other's defence when we call attention to the sell-out-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Reginald Cyril Symes: As I was saying, the public has for long been subsidizing the oil industry through tax concessions.

During the sixties, because of the tax policies adopted in Ottawa and perpetuated by this government, 38.4 per cent of the capital of the oil companies was supplied through tax concessions and write-offs. That is to say, twice as much capital was given by the taxpayers through concessions as was supplied by parent companies. The parent companies supplied only 17.6 per cent of the capital, and in return they got back in the form of dividends from their Canadian operations 18.1 per cent of the revenue. This incredible tax situation, perpetuated by the Liberal government, is another factor we should bear in mind when considering whether we can afford to buy control of Syncrude and develop our natural resources in the Canadian interest.
Another argument which is usually brought up against treating our resources as a public utility is that we cannot do so because we lack the necessary technical expertise. This is an overrated argument. We should bear in mind that the oil companies interested in Syncrude do not themselves possess the necessary expertise. As is a common practice among oil companies they contract out to drillers and other firms which do the work in the field for them. There is no difficulty about the Canadian government contracting work out in a similar way.
Contracting out to Bechtel, the United States corporation, worsens the balance of payments situation about which the Minister of Finance is so concerned. So Syncrude will not only be borrowing from Canadian banks to pay Bechtel, it will be profiting from tax concessions as well. Jobs will go to the United States rather than to Canadian engineers and firms.
The other day I asked the energy minister what percentage of Canadian firms would be employed in the contracting, and how many Canadian engineers would be engaged. The minister did not have any figures, but the figures I have indicate that the bulk of the contracts have already been let to United States firms and engineers. As an example of the amount of money being spent outside the country in the Syncrude deal, there are four draglines supplied by two American companies at a cost of $65 million; two fluid cokers from the United States costing $66 million; a sour water treater from the United States costing $500 million; desalting of raw bitumen will be done by a Texas company.
The basic technology for the Syncrude deal was developed in Alberta by Canadian engineers with the Alberta Research Council. Yet the oil companies are taking the research done by Canadians and hiring Americans to fulfil the contracts. If the government owns Syncrude, we could hire Canadians and contract out to Canadian firms and engineers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson).


Reginald Cyril Symes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-
February 10, 1975


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie on a point of order.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Perhaps Madam Speaker can correct me, but I believe I started at 9.20 and have five minutes left.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The record shows that the hon. member commenced at 9.14, so his time expired at 9.54.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A further point of order, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie on a further point of order.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Were deductions made for all the interruptions by Conservative and Liberal party members?


John Napier Turner: They were the best part of your speech.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of speaking on Bill C-49 dealing with taxation. Since the comments tonight have dealt almost exclusively with the oil industry and Syncrude, perhaps 1 may be allowed a few minutes to speak on the same subject. In the debate I have heard in this House over the last several days regarding oil, taxation and Syncrude, a few points have not been mentioned, and I should like to refer to them now.
I believe most hon. members realize, with today's economy and oil shortages that there is a tremendously explosive situation in the Middle East which could erupt any day. We have no guarantee of oil from the Middle East today, tomorrow, or at any time in the future. Certainly this is a very untenable situation for Canada; we cannot rely upon this oil or upon these suppliers.
If the government were to say that the Athabasca tar sands, our greatest known oil resource, are a dangerous gamble and that we are going to rely upon the supply of energy by other nations, then I think the government would be derelict in its duty, because we cannot rely upon other sources of energy. When a government takes power it must gamble on the side of safety; it must protect the Canadian consumer. It would be irresponsible if we did not take every means we have available in order to ensure a supply of oil for Canada, regardless of what any opposition party may say.
Secondly, in discussing Syncrude and taxation, the government must surely make every attempt to see we are self-sufficient in energy in the future. Not only do we not have a safe source of energy supply from outside Canada; it is the government's responsibility to protect the Canadian consumer pricewise, and we all know that the price of oil across the border and from across the seas is much higher than what we are paying in Canada. Again I think the government would be derelict in its duty if it did not make every attempt to produce oil for Canadians at a price that Canadians can afford.
We are very fortunate to be one of the few industrial nations of the world that are not being held hostage to fortune. The position we are in today has been called luck, it has been called good management. I really do not care
Adjournment Motion
what it is called so long as our balance of payments is not such that we are bled to death paying for oil we can produce ourselves.
I take umbrage at the remarks of the last speaker who would let political motives interfere with what I consider to be a duty. This duty is to get oil on stream regardless of what are our political motives. Because it is for Canadians, not for political philosophy-


Mr. Leggatt:: We don't want another sell out like the Columbia River treaty.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The members of the NDP say we are gambling by putting money into Syncrude. By the same token, other members of that party say that we should not gamble just a little bit but a whole big bit, which of course is not very realistic. There is no question about it: this is a gamble. The high cost of producing Syncrude oil is a gamble, because there is no certainty as to what the cost of oil will be a year from now, five years from now, or ten years from now. If the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) will put a guarantee on it, then I will buy shares in the company. But until there is a guarantee on it, it is a gamble.
The fact that we, as a government, are gambling the tax money of Canadians on this project is to some members, perhaps, repugnant. However, I must emphasize again that if we are going to gamble, let us gamble on the side of safety, on the side of having oil five years or ten years from now, so we will not be held hostage. If we are going to gamble and make errors, then let us make the error that we have more oil than we need.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Alan Anderson: I am very happy to hear that the NDP opposition is awake and listening tonight. I am glad to know they are listening to remarks having to do with resources. I am very interested in resources, coming from British Columbia. Unfortunately, we have had the experience of the government imposing royalties, trying to-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: On Friday last I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) about the possible organization of a Canada Labour relations council to assist government in a regular review of issues affecting labour relations, where the emphasis would be on the parties seeking joint solutions to their problems, but where the government's lively interest in the resolution of these questions, with all that this implies, would be felt.

February 10, 1975
Adjournment Motion
This approach, which I have reason to believe finds general favour with the minister, seems to me to be of great importance, particularly because of the economic climate in which we now find ourselves. Labour and management are being put under increasing pressures to protect not only their respective positions of trust vis-avis their own organizations, but jointly to protect the public interest at a time when inflation and unemployment are both rampant.
Certainly the minister is aware of the problem, although in fairness one must point out that neither he nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would concede there was anything wrong with the economy or with anything else during last summer's election campaign. This was a striking example, Madam Speaker, of one of the best documented cases of selective amnesia the country has ever seen.
Last fall when questioned before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), concerning the government's approach to this sort of problem, and by that I mean the problem of labour-management conflicts, the public interest and comparative wage scales, the Minister said:
To try, in a contemporaneous fashion, to say what is a reasonable and just allocation of the national distribution of income, to all the various levels, and not just the labour movement which negotiates in public. This is all the people who give themselves increases in private. It is to see if we cannot come up with some objective standards, criteria that are just and do not try to visit the inflationary process unevenly on one segment.
I suggest this is a constructive approach, although one must not forget the priority of trying to control inflation. The minister is not unfamiliar with the following proposition, that there are a number of difficulties in labour relations, with current bargaining structures and, indeed, attitudes, and he believes that these can be improved.
However, they cannot be improved by government imposing solutions on labour or management. The improvements must come through a joint process of decision making which the parties see as being realistic and acceptable to themselves, with the role of government being to ensure that they are pushed to find better solutions to the problems we face.
Some of the problems are of a structural nature in that there are many bargaining points, many bargaining agents and many unions. The result, as any holiday traveller in Canada knows, is something as exciting as the Olympic lottery. As he embarks on his holiday, confident that the airline pilots are working and that the machinists are also on the job, there just may happen to be a walkout of ticket clerks and other personnel.
Even if all these private sector employees are on the job the trip could still be placed in jeopardy by collective action taken by air traffic controllers, technicians, airport electricians or firefighters. There are similar difficulties in the movement of grain, with the risk of its steady flow being halted if in the long stream handling of the commodity there is labour peace on the dockside but not on the ships or on the waterways.
It is clear that the system today lacks coherence and has a great potential for conflict. I believe that in summarizing approaches here the minister has some sympathy with and

certainly is also aware that there is a willingness, which is shared by both labour and management, to participate more fully in discussions of how our national product will be divided.
Management is more confident of its place in association with government; labour is much less sure of itself. But it is believed that the potential is there and that labour wants to be a social partner, and that there are enormous reservoirs of goodwill which can be mobilized.
It has been suggested that a Canada labour relations council can be a mechanism that could go beyond one shot consultation, and that the government's objectives for the council could be an alteration of bargaining structures so as to reduce the number of bargaining points.
In assessing this particular objective I would hope that the minister would keep in mind that in some western industralized nations the state has a greater role than in Canada in assisting labour and management with the administration and provision of fringe benefits so that the parties can stick to the basic question of what is a fair wage.
Other objectives of the council, which I believe the minister favours, are the utilization of structures for ongoing relationships; to persuade the parties to adopt alternative modes of settlement of disputes so as to lessen impact of conflict on others if not on themselves; and to ascertain what additional programs and services we should be providing in the way of support.
Some of these concepts that the minister proposed are sound objectives, but these sound objectives must be initially premised on one very basic and fundamental point, namely, that the establishment of the council he proposes be left in the hands of the parties which will be its constituent members. By this I mean that the trade union movement be left to appoint its own members to the council and to remove them if it sees fit, and that the same right be enjoyed by management. If this is not done then the council will be a puppet body to which government appointees are named, in all probability not necessarily reflecting the proper views of those they purport to represent.
Consideration must also be given to the fact that organized labour represents only about one-third of the labour force of this country, and the interests of this comparatively unorganized group must be kept in mind to the greatest extent possible.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite suffers somewhat from amnesia, and is selective indeed. He remembers the issues in the election campaign very well, but he conveniently forgets the results on July 8 and the endorsement of the Canadian people of the government and its policies.
As the minister said on Friday last, as recorded on page 3017 of Hansard, I take it that the hon. member is making a representation that the minister should ask his colleagues to approve the creation of a body to be designated the Canada labour relations council. It is obviously no longer a secret that the minister has already taken this initiative.
February 10, 1975

It is apparent also, and the hon. member can verify this himself, that the minister has addressed the problems of labour relations in Canada to his colleagues in a very frank manner. I hope that as time goes on the parties themselves in collective bargaining, and the members of this house, would address themselves to the issues that he has outlined in such a way as to seek lasting solutions to the difficult questions posed.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH BODY TO SET STANDARDS FOR WORKERS IN VARIOUS CATEGORIES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, during the debate on the settlement of the rail strike in August of 1973 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said the following in reference to the way we determine the level of wages in any dispute between management and labour in Canada-he said this with the hearty applause of members on government benches, and I think that all hon. members should keep in mind what he said, not because I agree with it but because it has to be measured against the actual needs and actual situation that we have been facing for some years now in the field of labour management relations:
How is the level of wages established? Is it according to a certain rule of justice, as I heard yesterday? No. It is according to the strength of each party. I have been in that trade all my life. I was involved in certain strikes where the justice of cause was very clear, and we lost. I was involved in others where it was less evident, and we won. Why? Because we were weak in the first case and strong in the second. This is the way disputes are settled. They are not settled according to certain criteria or principles known or accepted by everybody. It is free bargaining.
That particular statement-and I direct through you, Madam Speaker, this point to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacGuigan)-had the endorsation of the entire government benches on the night it was given. If indeed that statement received such approbation, then I think that we can take it that at the time, and that is only a short while ago, that was the policy of this government.
In the light of a document that has recently come to public attention, we now find a definite shift away from that position. I do not see how any other interpretation can be given to it. For instance, in October of 1974 I put questions to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) at the-time we were settling the grain strike. I was asking him about this complete question, and the Minister of Labour referred to the need for some type of formal structure for ongoing discussions between labour and management which could possibly lead to setting up some central body which would have the confidence of both sides and could come up with comparison criterion standards for workers in various categories, some standards against which judgment can be made on what is fair and reasonable.
It does not take very much imagination to see that that statement is not consistent with the statement made by the Minister of Transport earlier. I think it is proper that not just all hon. members in this House but the entire community, which has a stake in the peaceful and effective settlement of labour-management disputes, consider
Adjournment Motion
very carefully just exactly what the philosophy is which ought to govern the settlement of these disputes. It is a fair question to ask, and I direct this to the hon. parliamentary secretary: what really is the policy of the government?
It is clear from the cabinet memorandum to which the parliamentary secretary referred in his answer just a moment ago to my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), that the minister of Labour now realizes full well that the position put forward by the Minister of Transport a year before is not a satisfactory approach to the problem of establishing a fair wage in any given dispute, and that there must be an attempt to find some sort of economic justice.
I think it is very important that the government explain to all hon. members, and to the public, whether there is now in the wisdom of the government a determination to shift away from a strictly adversary approach, an arrangement which can only result in a settlement depending on the strength of the parties. Let us all exercise some common sense. When we have disputes affecting the national interest or essential services, in the traditional approach of free collective bargaining, which depends on the alternate right of management to lock out and the right of labour to strike and withdraw its services, those two traditional weapons do not exist because as soon as labour makes the strike effective by using that economic weapon, all hon. members are called back into this House, and we end the strike because it is then affecting the national interest.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to meet my point and to tell this House whether what is happening right now in the government is a moving away, a shift of emphasis from the old fashioned adversary system where power was the final determinant, to an attempt to try to find some way to give some just wage to workers-especially where the dispute affects the national interest-who are locked into a hopeless position because they cannot exercise the only ultimate economic weapon they have, and that is the right to strike, because when it affects the national interest we are called back into parliament, and we take that right to strike away from them.
This is a fundamental issue. How will we, in coming years, find a more civil way to determine these disputes? They should not be settled on the basis that one group, whether in management or labour, has power which is out of all proportion to the justice of the cause. Surely, if we are to have a civil society, a society which exercises fairness, we must find a way to determine what is a fair and proper wage. It must not be a wage which can be beaten out of the other guy. People should not see how low you can keep a wage if you beat the worker down.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to deal specifically with two questions. First, does the document, which was released to the public within the last few days, reflect a shift in government policy, in view of the statement the Minister of Transport made one year or so ago? If so, will this new policy be the subject of a statement in the House of Commons? Second, have we the right to believe that the government, in moving as it has, has the support of organized elements of labour? I ask this as I perceive the government has shifted its position.
3098

February 10, 1975
Adjournment Motion


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, this government has always asserted the primacy of the public interest in labour disputes and has never pretended that labour disputes are matters which affect exclusively the parties. One cannot, in a particular case, make law on the spot. If we are to have a system in which the public interest is continuously involved to a greater extent, obviously that system must be built up in advance of any particular dispute. Quotations which refer to particular disputes in advance of the establishment of the general policy are not to be taken as indications of the government's over-all attitude. Obviously, if we succeed in the initiatives which the minister is now proposing, there will be a difference in techniques but no change in the general philosophy of the government. However, there may be a more effective way to bring about industrial peace.
I assume that when the hon. member referred on Friday to the recent meetings with labour representatives he was referring to the meeting held on January 22 with the officers and general vice presidents of the Canadian Labour Congress. At that meeting it was agreed between the government and the labour representatives that those discussions were confidential and that participants would limit themselves to saying that the government and labour
had met and would meet again, and that there had been no precise agreement or undertaking beyond that.
The meeting on January 22 was part of the on-going consultations in relation to inflation, and a formal structure for on-going discussions between labour and management was not the subject of that meeting, although some passing reference was made to it.
I can advise the House that informal discussions have been held with representatives of labour and with the representatives of management, and both sides have expressed considerable interest in the minister's proposal to establish the Canada labour relations council, the purpose of which will be to find, on a continuing basis, solutions to difficult problems of practice and perception in labour relations.
As was indicated on Friday, the government has not yet taken a decision on the substance of the minister's proposal, but I can say that the minister is greatly encouraged by the positive response of both labour and management to the proposal. Considerable work has been done in the department and we look forward to making those details public at an appropriate time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Tuesday, February 11, 1975