1975-07-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. During the past four years Canadian schools and universities have made countless representations to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the CBC requesting the loan of CBC educational films for showing in classrooms. All they have received has been a big run around. I move, seconded by the member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House direct the Secretary of State to start immediate negotiations with the Canadian School Trustees Association and the Canadian School Teachers Association and all interested parties to design a plan to allow CBC educational films to be shown in Canadian classrooms.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since officials of Air Canada have not appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications since 1973, and in view of the many developments since then in the area of air transportation policy and events affecting our national air carrier such as the current inquiry into certain aspects of Air Canada's policies by Chief Justice Estey, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the government House leader in consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Transport, expedite the appearance of witnesses from Air Canada before the appropriate committee of the House as soon as possible following the tabling of Chief Justice Estey's report so
that all interested members may have the opportunity of examining these officials from our national air carrier and in particular those who have given testimony before the Estey commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires that the motion cannot be put without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whom the Secretary of State for External Affairs last week invited me to ask whether he is prepared to table the provisions of the agreement of 1973 between Canada and Argentina. This is the agreement which provides for subsequent negotiations of safeguards in connection with the CANDU reactor deal. Can the minister tell us whether there were provisions for subsequent negotiation of safeguards in that commercial contract, and if so is he prepared to table them?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: There was in the commercial contract a provision stipulating that the agreement was subject to an agreement being entered into between Argentina and the International Atomic Energy Agency. We are talking now about the contract which was signed on December 20, 1973. Subsequently, there was such a negotiation and an agreement was completed between the government of Argentina and the IAEA. While it might not be in the commercial interest of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to put the actual document on record, I imagine there would be no difficulty about reproducing the wording, although I do not think it is more complicated than what I have just expressed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So, the recollection of the Acting Prime Minister was not exactly accurate when he expressed confidence that there was provision in that contract for the subsequent negotiation of a bilateral agreement on safeguards between Argentina and Canada; it appears the

July 14, 1975
Oral Questions
only safeguards are those which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has just mentioned.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I understand that the President of the Privy Council did not say that there was provision for a bilateral agreement. Perhaps the hon. gentleman is confusing this with a subsequent situation when the tighter set of safeguards was adopted and announced to the House on December 20, 1974. This was one year later than the Argentine contract. There have, of course, been negotiations between Canada and Argentina with regard to the higher level of Canadian standards with respect to safeguards. My understanding is that the exchange of notes referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on which he was seeking the concurrence of the government of Argentina with a view to tabling in the House, was the result of further negotiations.
I further understand that those negotiations relating to additional safeguard requirements which Canada has stipulated at the moment are continuing, but that the final bilateral agreement has not been completed. So, of course, the obligation under the financial agreement and the continuance of the project have been delayed while this is being negotiated.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: To the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker, has there been any exchange of notes between Canada and Argentina other than the communication from our ambassador to the ambassador of Argentina on September 10 and the communication from the Argentine minister of foreign affairs on September 12 which, in effect, amounted to the sort of assurance which Canada got from India when Canada sold India an atomic reactor?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. gentleman has referred to an exchange of notes between the Government of Canada and the government of the Republic of Argentina constituting an agreement concerning nuclear co-operation which was signed in that country on September 10, 1974. If he wishes, I will be happy to table that exchange of notes. I understand there is a further exchange of notes in the field of nuclear co-operation which has not yet been made public. It will be made public if I get the concurrence of the government of Argentina, which I am seeking. This exchange is part of the further negotiation of a bilateral agreement upon which we are now working with the Argentine government.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF NOTES EXCHANGED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Secretary of State table those documents, and, when he has received permission from Argentina, table

the rest? Perhaps he could clear up some confusion which has been created, quite unintentionally I am sure, by the Acting Prime Minister and by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


INSPECTION OF NUCLEAR REACTORS-GOVERNMENT INTENTION TO RELY ON SERVICES OF INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Do I understand that the position of the government, stated correctly, is that we are putting all our inspection eggs in the basket of the IAEA, in spite of the fact that there is criticism throughout the world now, I believe, that that agency simply does not have enough experienced inspectors to do the job properly? Are we relying completely on their safeguards and inspection?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, those are the procedures provided by the non-proliferation treaty, namely that rather than have bilateral or country to country inspections, the inspections should be carried out by the international agency which has the confidence and support of so many countries. It is for this reason that we have adopted the international inspectors for the purpose of carrying out the Canadian bilateral regime.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We believe, in other words, that the NPT is not strong enough. What I am specifically asking the minister is to to give a guarantee, if he will, on behalf of the government that the government itself believes that the inspection procedures and the inspection personnel of IAEA will never again permit us to be in the sorry state of affairs that we have in respect of the Indian matter.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman misunderstands the situation totally. The Indian arrangement was entered into before the International Atomic Energy Agency was in existence and before the non-proliferation treaty. On that basis, there was no safeguards regime to be entered at the time that Canada and, may I add, the United States entered into the arrangement with India in this regard. So that any further negotiations or transactions that may be concluded, not only from now on but since the creation of the IAEA, are under a specific regime of sageguards.
The Canadian bilateral regime goes further than the non-proliferation treaty, which permits peaceful nuclear explosions. The Canadian safeguards do not permit the use of atomic energy technology, equipment or uranium for that purpose at all, so to that extent the bilateral safeguards of Canada are much stricter than under the NPT. The NPT is a system that is very much stricter than
July 14, 1975

that which existed when the Indian arrangement was entered into, when in fact there was no such regime.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the minister is misunderstanding the point that I am trying to make, that point being that we have apparently surpassed the safeguards under the nonproliferation treaty. I am asking the minister whether the government honestly feels that the safeguards procedure and inspection personnel of IAEA are good enough, when we have already surpassed the safeguards.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I still think the hon. gentleman is confused. If he is asking do I share a negative opinion about the International Atomic Energy Agency, I do not believe that there is any information is external affairs, or in this department of the Atomic Energy Control Board, to justify a negative judgment about the competence or willingness of that agency to carry out its stated duties.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of state responsible for housing. Considering the month over month increase in the cost of housing between May and June, which was the largest increase in more than a year, and considering that the minister has stated in the House that he can do nothing more either about interest rates in terms of holding them down or in terms of increasing the supply of housing, what is the minister specifically planning to do to ensure that the rent increases in limited dividend projects in Canada will actually reflect the real increases in cost, as is supposed to be the case under the legislation?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I just met on Saturday with the limited dividend tenants association of Toronto. We are monitoring that situation rather closely. CMHC examines and audits all increases. We all want to be satisfied, including the tenants, that these increases do reflect increased costs. These tenants are prepared to pay these increased costs, but they do not want them inflated. We are trying to develop procedures to satisfy everyone that these only reflect increased costs.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister may not be surprised to know that I was aware of the meeting on Saturday and hence the question. At the meeting it was pointed out that the alleged cost increases which are passed on to the tenants, according to the people he met with, have not occurred but are simply claimed as increases in cost. I would ask the minister what inspection procedure the government has for ensuring that tenants in fact are not being gyped? What inspection procedures does the government have at the present time, and following his meeting on Saturday does he have any new procedures
Oral Questions
or any plans to implement to ensure that justice is done to these tenants?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the leader of the NDP used the word "alleged" because these are allegations which we are trying to substantiate. I do not have any magic solution to instantly answer the problem, except to say that we are probably capable of handling it on this side of the House. We are entering into consultations with the tenants' groups and with CMHC to make certain we develop a monitoring procedure that does satisfy everyone involved that these prices are indeed justified. I am just as concerned as are the tenants and the leader of the NDP.


REJECTION OF QUINPOOL PROJECT IN HALIFAX- GOVERNMENT POSITION ON NON-PROFIT HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary in relation to low cost housing and I refer in this instance to a development in Halifax which was rejected within the past few days. I would ask the minister if the decision by the regional office of CMHC in Halifax to not approve the Quinpool project in that city, a project which was to provide for non-profit housing, indicates a new policy of CMHC in that region, vis-a-vis non-profit housing in favour of higher density and higher cost housing for upper income people? Does that particular decision reflect a general policy or does it relate only to the Quinpool project and, if it is the latter, will the minister intervene to turn that around?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the Quinpool project is a specific project and it was dealt with on its own merits. I happen to have had meetings with senior officials of CMHC this morning regarding housing in Halifax generally. There are priorities, and my priorities certainly are to help those in the lower income groups to the greatest extent possible. That is where the priority must be. The need is great everywhere but it is greater for those people, and that is where the priority will remain.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering that newspapers which advertise abortion procurement directly contravene the provisions of section 159(2) (c), could the Acting Prime Minister advise the House whether the government will institute proceedings against these people who are breaking the law and undermining the morals of our country?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the administration of the criminal code is in the hands of the provinces,

July 14, 1975
Oral Questions
and the Attorney General of any province can take such action if he feels that is desirable.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it relates to two south Vietnamese generals, General Hon and General Doi. Would the minister advise on what basis the present investigation is taking place, whether in fact the investigation has been completed, and is it the government's intention to deport these two gentlemen?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, General Hon and his family were given the promise of a visa letter, equivalent to a visa, in Saigon before the end of April as the result of a valid nomination by a brother-in-law who was a landed immigrant in Montreal. At that time the hon. member will recall we were doing our utmost to reunite families and were giving priority to those who were nominated or sponsored relatives. Hon arrived in Montreal at the end of May. He is on a minister's permit. While being under permit he will undergo full investigation and re-examination including medical and background, prior to any decision to give him landed status. I think it would be inappropriate to make any further comment with regard to General Hon.
The other person whose name has been appearing in allegations, Nguyen Tan Doi, was admitted to Canada for permanent residence in 1969. He went back to Viet Nam on a business trip. Some months later his case came before the courts in Viet Nam and I understand he was incarcerated but released in 1975. He returned to Canada and was admitted as a returning resident. At the moment we have no precise evidence that would suggest to us that this is out of order, but the background check is being carried out.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could advise the basis upon which these investigations are now being carried out. Surely, something must be wrong. At the same time would the minister advise what was the basis of the ministerial permit issued in the one instance.


Robert Knight Andras: I explained the issue of the ministerial permit in my answer to the previous question. As to the basis for investigation, it is simply routine on the basis of certain allegations that have been made. I am not in a position to confirm the depth or the validity of those allegations or otherwise at this stage.


REQUEST FOR NUMBER OF VIETNAMESE REFUGEES UNDER INVESTIGATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would advise the House and
(Mr. Sharp.]
the people of Canada what the allegations are which caused an investigation. But in order to see just what is going on-spending money after the fact-I wonder whether the minister can advise the House now just how many South Vietnamese are presently under investigation. Can he give us that information?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot give the hon. member or the House that information. I rather regret there is an implication that in the Vietnamese refugee movement there is any more requirement to investigate than in any other refugee movement. The very nature of a refugee movement is that we are giving compassionate consideration to people in very difficult situations. Characteristically of all that, and I think properly so, we relax the examinations temporarily in order to quickly effect their entry into Canada. In respect of people coming on minister's permits, which has been the practice in respect of every refugee movement with which I have been associated and with which my predecessors have been associated, the use of the ministerial permit is precisely for that purpose. It does not permit landing. It gives them temporary access to Canada and gives us time to do any background checks which we consider necessary.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder, in keeping with the spirit of the green revolution, whether the minister would consent to giving some fertilizer aid to the developing countries, even if it means changing the regular food aid program to the developing countries since they are going to have a 3'A billion short ton shortage of nitrogen fertilizer in the forthcoming year, and some of our food aids are causing tremendous concern in the developing countries at the present time.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the Government of Canada has doubled its aid in the form of fertilizer this year. Also at the recent meeting which I attended in Rome of the World Food Council a review was being made of this very situation.


PENITENTIARIES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and has to do with the assaults, some of which turned out to be homicides, by prisoners against guards at the various penitentiaries in our country. About a year ago I suggested there should be periodic checks for the purpose of examining whether there was contraband in the possession of any prisoners such as guns, knives and the like. I compliment
July 14, 1975

the minister on that course having been followed, but I should like to ask him what were the results of the searches that were made in the 49 penitentiaries and penal institutions?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, periodic checks are made, such as the one made last Friday, but I do not yet have the results. I hear that in the Ontario region they found very few contraband knives, but I do not have have the reports from the British Columbia or prairie regions or from the Quebec or Atlantic regions as yet.


John George Diefenbaker: That is quite a delay in giving a report on a matter as important as that. Did the minister receive any information on whether, as a result of the searches, any guns have been found?


William Warren Allmand: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but as I say I do not have as yet the full report on that.


John George Diefenbaker: Any reports?


William Warren Allmand: Searches were carried out on Friday and the reports will be given to the commissioner of penitentiaries and handed to me as soon as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Doing things as soon as possible in the penitentiary service has certainly not been beneficial to the guards. Will the minister make it a point today to endeavour to get this report in reasonable finality and give it tomorrow, because guards everywhere are deeply concerned over the fact that too little attention is paid to the danger in which they find themselves as a result of indolence, negligence or other reasons in the penal institutions?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get that information to the right hon. member as soon as possible.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of many reports over the weekend the Solicitor General was contemplating a crime package related also to the subject matter of capital punishment, can he advise the House whether, if he has any measures which will help improve the administration of justice, they will be brought forward now rather than be wrapped up with the very philosophical and sensitive issue of capital punishment?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, these matters are under review at present, and as soon as any measures are ready they will be brought before the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I had so many questions last week that I am only getting to the first one now, but I know that I cannot go too far today. Usually I am partly
Oral Questions
satisfied with the answers of the Solicitor General, but his last one was completely unsatisfactory. I should like to ask the Solicitor General if he does not think it is a more honourable and intellectually honest way-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -to bring forward the question of capital punishment by itself, rather than tie it up with a yellow ribbon, together with the omnibus bill which contains many other matters affecting the administration of justice?


William Warren Allmand: No decision has been made to bring forward an omnibus bill. As I mentioned before, all these matters are under consideration at present, but no decision has been made yet.


SUGGESTED EARLY INTRODUCTION OF MEASURES TO IMPROVE ADMINISTRATION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate the fact that the minister has been questioned on this matter before. About a month ago he said these matters would be under consideration. When will the decision be made and, secondly, can the minister tell the House today whether he has any measures to improve the administration of justice in the form of a bill for first reading at least so we can see what these measures are, and will he let the other matters take their course in the fall?


William Warren Allmand: We have been implementing measures of an administrative nature immediately. The right hon. member referred to measures we are carrying on in the penitentiaries for the security of guards and inmates. With respect to bills, we are preparing certain bills and measures now and we will bring them before the House as quickly as possible. I would like to expedite them as quickly as I can.


RECOMMENDATION FOR FREE TRADE BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I apologize for not having a chance to give him advance notice of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eymard G. Corbin: Are we to understand that the government and the minister particularly do not propose to accept the suggestion of the Economic Council of Canada and its chairman that Canada open up its border completely to the importation of cheap, low priced and unfairly competitive manufactured items and that the government rejects the incipient threat contained in the proposal to the very survival of our manufacturing industry and of the hundreds of thousands of jobs, especially in the textile clothing field?

July 14, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government is very much aware of the threats in the particular proposal to which the hon. member has referred. I have looked at what might be described as fine hypothetical scenarios for free trade. I should like to say the hon. member that my department will be looking at this in detail. But the most important thing which I think we should recognize at present is that we do have threats to our industry. At the same time, we are fully committed to liberalizing our trade.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the expectation that perhaps I will get one answer instead of two. Last February representatives of the United Automobile Workers visited the minister and presented him with a brief containing a number of proposals to improve the health of the automobile industry. At that time the minister indicated he would be taking these proposals very seriously and would announce action in the very near future. Can the minister say now what discussions are taking place on the UAW proposals and what action, if any, is contemplated on the UAW brief?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the UAW brief, and I believe the hon. member may have seen a copy of it. I noted a number of suggestions made by the UAW, including an annual report on the auto trade between Canada and the United States. That will be done as a matter of course from now on.
The other initiative announced some months ago following that meeting was to provide more incentive to Canadian auto parts manufacturers by providing tariff remissions on the reimport into Canada of auto parts made by Canadian firms but located in the automobiles of foreign manufacturers.


AUTOMOBILES-POSSIBLE MEASURES TO IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT IN INDUSTRY
Max Saltsman: May I ask
the minister whether he is still relying on an up-turn in the Canadian market and the American market to improve employment in the auto industry or whether he is taking specific measures, aside from some of the measures he has indicated in the past. The reason I ask that question is that it seems that everything that has been done until the present has been an absolute failure. In fact, the concessions on the remissions program was a complete failure. The question is whether the minister is contemplating any 
new initiative to improve employment in the auto industry in Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have indicated that we have taken a number of new trade initiatives to assist the Canadian auto manufacturers, particularly part makers, to find new markets. At the same time, I must remind the hon. member that when 80 per cent of the market is in the United States, there will not be any major up-turn for the Canadian auto manufacturing industry until that market turns up.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of the remarks he made the other day. Can the minister tell the House whether, with respect to the Vancouver airport studies about which I asked the minister, these studies will be filed with the House and with the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications before this session is adjourned?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I will have to see the report before making any decision on it, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, I intend to meet the minister of transportation for British Columbia and discuss the whole matter with him. At this moment, I cannot say exactly what we will do with the reports.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL-SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF REPORTS PRIOR TO DECISION ON RUNWAY EXTENSION
John Allen Fraser: I thank the minister for his reply. On July 9 the minister said, and I quote from Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to table all the reports and have them referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation of this House for full discussion.
May I ask the minister whether that means that no decision will be made by the government or by the minister's department on the proposed international airport until the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has a chance to study the reports which the minister is collecting at this time?


Jean Marchand: That will depend upon when I receive the report. Whether I receive it tomorrow or in a month makes a difference. With the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, I am committed to study all the main transportation problems in Canada, and I want to stick to that until I have good reasons not to.
July 14, 1975


John Allen Fraser: Is the minister telling the House that the standing committee will study these reports before any final decision is made as to whether the government is going to go ahead with the new proposed runway at Vancouver International Airport?


Jean Marchand: Unless there are good reasons not to, that is what I intend to do.


HOUSING
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Outside the chamber the minister has now revised his target for housing starts downward to 180,000.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is a 15 per cent drop from his original estimate. In view of the fact that demand continues well above the 200,000 level, and given some of his other comments, will the minister now move to stimulate supply by removing the restrictive income and cost regulations of private AHOP and introduce a single control factor in order to rescue the program from obvious failure?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, first, I did not give that figure. It was one which was speculated upon by a journalist who is well aware of the circumstances. He tried to put those words into my mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: In any event, it was an educated guess by a very concerned journalist. It is not my figure. The fact remains that the private AHOP program is one on which I am working closely with the private lenders now. I am getting in touch with all the heads of the lending institutions across the country to determine the real nature of the funding they have available for this. They showed great enthusiasm for it, but I have not seen the action I would like to see. I will not consider the program a failure until I have gone through that procedure. This is why I am not revising figures. The 210,000 figure was a net figure which we all agreed was needed to break even this year. I regret that it is unlikely we will make that figure. I do not want to settle for a figure lower than I have to, and I am going to try for the maximum possible.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Is the minister prepared to give a figure to the House at which he is now aiming? Further to his other comments, and in order to prevent a further downward revision before the end of 1975, could the minister tell us how successful he has been in persuading his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to introduce the action he has recommended to slow the spiral of rising interest rates?
Oral Questions


Barnett Jerome Danson: I do not know to what recommendation my hon. friend is referring. In this case I am trying to say that I am not satisfied with anything under 210,000. I realize the great difficulty in a year of slow economic activity, shortage of mortgage funds and high cost mortgage funds, but I am not giving up by naming a lower figure because I want to get as close to that higher figure as possible. I am going to continue to press builders and lending institutions for this higher figure. I am going to settle for that, and I will be happy with nothing lower.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that one of the major U.S. banks has recently raised its prime rate for the second time, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance accepts that the decline in the prime rates and in interest rates has bottomed out. While he did not speak about it in his budget, what does he see now as the future of interest rates in the short term in Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is as knowledgeable as anyone in the House on these matters, and he must know how precarious it would be for me to predict either movements of exchange rates or interest rates and thus allow the market to take a position for or against that statement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In view of the fact that the policy of the central bank has been for the maintenance of higher rates in order to counter a debilitating decline on the international account, would the minister say what the policy of the government is with regard to the movement of the interest rate at the present time? Is there an influence for a lower rate in order to help his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, or is it toward an increase in the rate in order to preserve the Canadian international monetary balances?


John Napier Turner: Neither, Mr. Speaker.


MANPOWER
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Considering the seriousness of the question, I am sure he has been alerted by his staff. In the light of the further disturbing and unfortunate announcement over the weekend by the president of the Sydney Steel Corporation that another 300 employees are to lose their jobs, adding to the approximately 500 who have been laid off since March, what has this government planned to provide alternative employment?

July 14, 1975
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, for the short term through the budget the other night we made substantial funds available for direct job creation. Beyond that my officials will be meeting with the people concerned to see what can be done with regard to other measures, mobility and so on, but I cannot give the hon. member more precise information than that at the moment.


Robert Muir: The minister mentioned mobility. We are back to the Gordon story: move them to Ontario; ship them out with a one way ticket. Last week there was also the closure of the Canadian Motor Industries plant, a Toyota assembly plant, with a further loss of jobs. Over the weekend the minister's own office estimated the unemployment rate in Cape Breton at the moment at 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Considering the source of these figures, I suggest it is a very conservative figure. In heaven's name, can the minister advise just what in hell his government is going to do to take us out of this Liberal depression? Please, someone!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the summer lay-offs being put into effect by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the thousands and by the Canadian National Railways in the hundreds. The answers given thus far by the minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on his behalf have simply confirmed these lay-offs. Could the minister tell the House what he has done to try to persuade the railways to keep these employees at work, especially in view of the great need for improvement in the rolling stock and equipment of both railways?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there are two railway companies in Canada: the Canadian National Railway, which belongs to the Canadian government, and the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is a private enterprise. The latter has its own collective agreement and union which provide for layoff procedures. There is therefore no reason for me to intervene. If I stepped in in the case of the CN, it was to prevent massive layoffs and the corporation agreed not to lay off more than 50 people every month as long as the economic circumstances continue to deteriorate. As soon as they stabilize, the CN will rehire these former employees. That is according to the terms of the agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even if the minister cannot intervene in the sense of forcing the railways to keep these employees at work, is he making any representations to them? In other words, is he doing anything more than simply receiving information from them?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, not only am I looking into the matter and trying to get some information, but I am also trying to exercise some influence, to the extent where the law and government authority will allow me. I doubt that it is news to the hon. member that the CP is an institution which has considerable influence in Canada.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Does he intend to revise his position about applying the law on capital punishment now in force in Canada in the case of the murder of a policeman or a prison guard, or does he at least intend to reevaluate the situation in the light of ever increasing crime and public debate, with a view to restoring capital punishment?


FINANCE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance? Does the Minister of Finance consider that the pre-election budget move of the Premier of Ontario, of giving a cash rebate of provincial sales tax on new cars built in North America, is in contravention of the terms and spirit of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and what is his attitude to the provincial intervention in an international agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.
July 14, 1975


AIRPORTS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns his statement of last Friday in which he said that he would stop construction of Pickering Airport if all the people of Toronto oppose its construction. Can the minister explain what this means? Are all men, women and children to make known their opposition, or must the majority of people as well as their local governments oppose it? What exactly did he mean? At the same time, can the minister advise the House why he has not stood behind his statement of February 21, when he said that he would revise the whole thing in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As it is now four months since Canadian missionaries Norman and Joan Johnson were taken captive in South Viet Nam, and two months since the government finally made representations on their behalf to the PRG in Paris, can the minister advise of any progress in securing the release of these Canadians who are being held contrary to all the promises of the Communist forces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the most recent information I have is that the PRG representatives have assured us that the safety of all such persons was being secured and that we would be given information if and when a release could be guaranteed. We have not had that further information and I will look into the matter at the first opportunity.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As these same forces also gave the assurance that Canadians would be released as soon as they were identified and that no civilians who had not taken part in military action would ever be held captive, can the minister say what the Department of External Affairs is doing to secure the release of Canadians who have been held captive for four months?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is aware that we have been making representations to the authorities on the subject, and that is the limit of our ability, unless he would want us to take some other action in Viet Nam.
Oral Questions


BROADCASTING
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
On May 30 last, I put a question to the Minister concerning Channel 10 in Vancouver. The minister then told me that he would find out if the commission was in a position to set a date by which it would reach a decision. The applicants must have spent a consideration amount of money for their application, and if the commission persists in delaying its answer, those expenses could increase by $1 million. Can the minister give us any information on this matter?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of the hon. member. The allocation of Channel 10 in the Vancouver area is a serious matter and that is probably why the CRTC has deliberated so long. I told the hon. member when he first expressed this concern, that I would make representations to the CRTC and ask them to expedite as much as possible the release of the decision. They told me that this is exactly what they are doing. They find the problem complex and want to make the most adequate decision they can.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister advise the House of Canada's position on the construction of the refinery at Eastport, Maine, and if the department has communicated with the United States about the use of Canadian waters by heavy tankers transporting the crude oil to this refinery? Also, has the United States government communicated with the minister's department the intentions of the Pittson Company relating to the construction of this refinery?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the Canadian government has consistently opposed the movement of carriers through Head Harbour passage, because of the environmental risks involved. The Maine environmental board, in its most recent decision, gave permission to the Pittson company to go ahead with the refinery, subject to certain conditions, which included securing permission from the Canadian authorities for transit for carriers carrying these products. We have not altered our position on the point. Since that decision by the Maine environmental board, no further formal representations have been made to us by the government of the United States. At present we are not sure whether the State Department will espouse the cause of the Pittson

July 14, 1975
Oral Questions
company, in the circumstances referred to. Certainly, if that were the case we should be obliged to repeat our long standing opposition to any such movement.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? In view of the minister's budgetary statement that there is to be a reduction of $135 million in funds available to reconstitute the Industrial Development Bank, and as IDB small business loans were reported to be down some 27 per cent in the six months ending in March, this year, will the minister indicate if his budgetary statement reflects a further cutback in IDB loans to small businesses, or was he just reflecting the reality, namely, that IDB assistance to small business has already fallen dramatically?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have a difficult time answering the hon. member's question in the brief time available. Briefly, the cutback reflects some restriction on expansion of the activities of that institution over the next fiscal year.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. As during the past four years school boards, school trustee associations, school teacher organizations and universities all across Canada have been asking the CBC for educational films which can be shown in Canadian schools, and as all these organizations have received from the minister and the CBC is the biggest runaround I have witnesses in my life, will the minister organize an immediate meeting with these groups and work out a plan, so that our Canadian schools and universities can obtain CBC educational films on a loan basis?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this is a matter for the corporation. Despite his rather intemperate premise, I want to be as helpful as possible. I believe that a decision in principle has already been taken and that the next stage is to work out a distribution system. The whole thing ought to be in place by the fall.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have submitted Bill C-291, which is on the order paper. It is intended to amend the Broadcasting Act and would permit CBC educational films to be used in Canadian schools. Will the minister use his influence and have this bill referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts so that legal and technical problems may be dealt with?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presenting reports from standing or special committees.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['1. (a) None, (b) None. The only persons directly affected by Bill C-13 are two new members of the Northern Canada\nJuly 14, 1975', 'Power Commission to be appointed to recommendation of the Commissioners in Council from each territory.\n2. Not applicable.']
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last Wednesday, July 9, I directed a question to the Minister of Labour. The Chair did not allow the minister to reply, but Your Honour said you would look into the matter and rule on it. I wonder if a ruling has been prepared. Also, I directed a simple question today to the Minister of Transport in which I asked him to explain a broad statement he made last Friday, and again the Chair would not allow the minister to answer. I am wondering what the ruling of the Chair is to be, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the former matter, I shall be able to refer to it more specifically tomorrow. The question the hon. member attempted to put today asked the minister if he would define what was meant by a majority opinion and when that would be ready. Surely that question must be recognized as being hypothetical in the extreme.



Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, the exchange of notes between the Government of Canada and the government of the Republic of Argentina constituting an agreement concerning nuclear co-operation, September 10 and 12, 1974.


PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-70, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
July 14, 1975	COMMONS DEBATES_______________________7529

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
The President of the Privy Council: That the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works be authorized to study the questions of oil and gas pipelines and the supply of oil and natural gas from frontier areas; that the members of the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada and in Alaska, U.S.A., during the month of September, 1975; and that the necessary support staff do accompany them.
Mr. Speaker;: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.

t.


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
The Minister of State (Fisheries)-That the annual report of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation for the year 1973-74, tabled February 11, 1975, be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for the purpose of hearing representations from the Fundy Weir Fisherman's Association, New Brunswick, and the Independent Gill Net Fishermen of Northern Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to
Order Paper Questions
and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,280, 1,294, 2,168, 2,458, 2,552, 2,707, 2,798 and 2,823.
Mr. Speaker, if question 1295 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974 and for the nine month period ending December 31, 1974, what were the aggregate expenditures for travel (a) abroad (b) within Canada (i) by the President of the Canadian International Development Agency (ii) by members of the Agency staff who accompanied him on these travels?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: (a)	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974 to 31/12/74$24,303.58	*11,321.58	*25,204.48	$9,260.01(b) (i) (ii)	not available* i. **	not available* it **	1,783.40 not available**	2,680.45 not available*'
* The analysis required to obtain the information requested would be prohibitive in terms of time, manpower and financial resources.
**Mr. Gerin-Lajoie was usually accompanied by a special assistant. Other appropriate CTDA officers, in charge of programmes or projects being carried out in countries or by international organizations being visited, were also present for the parts of the missions related to their specific responsibilities. Since such persons did not usually accompany Mr. Gerin-Lajoie for a complete trip but were combining such a function with other duties, the question cannot be answered without searches which would be prohibitive in terms of time ami manpower.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Prime Minister aware of the report in the Montreal Gazette of January 23, 1975 referring to Dr. W.H. Fader of Toronto as spokesman for the donors to the swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive and quoting him to the effect that a system has been established whereby each donor, including the Prime Minister, will receive receipts for income tax purposes?
2.	Is the Prime Minister one of the donors to the pool fund at 24 Sussex Drive and, if so (a) on what date did he commit himself to such a donation (b) what is the amount of such a donation (c) will he be permitted to claim the full amount of this donation as a deduction for income tax purposes?
3.	If the government permits deduction of the full amount of the donations to the swimming pool fund for income tax purposes, will this mean that income tax revenues received by the government will be reduced by the full cost of the swimming pool and does this mean that the swimming pool is in reality being paid for by the people of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. Yes.
2. Yes. Whether the Prime Minister will be permitted to claim the full amount of his donation for income tax purposes is a matter for taxation officials to determine under existing legislation.

July 14, 1975
Order Paper Questions
3. Since the cost of gifts to the Crown are deductible from taxable income and not from taxes owing, the answer is no.


Mr. Leggatt: Has the (a) Department of the Environment (b) Department of Transport (c) Department of Energy, Mines and Resources ever funded the Arctic Institute of North America and, if so, on what date and for what amount of money?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment, Energy, Mines and Resources and Transport as follows:
(a)	1972-73, $20,000.00; 1973-74, $34,250.00; 1974-75, $58.75;
(b)	The Ministry of Transport has no record of ever providing funds to assist the Arctic Institute of North America, (c) August 6, 1968, $10,000.00; November 8, 1968, $2,000.00; October 15, 1970, $1,550.30; November 29, 1971, $9,937.48.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	What action is the government taking to reduce the incidence of antibiotic residue in milk, meat and other edible food products containing meat and/or milk?
2.	Have there been any cases reported of persons taken ill by drinking milk or eating meat, or eating or drinking other food products that contained antibiotic residue and, if so, how many for each year 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The use of antibiotics in livestock feeds are regulated under the Feeds Act. Only those kinds and concentrations of antibiotics are permitted that will not cause residues in meat or milk. Feed samples are regularly analysed to ensure compliance with standards. Food products such as skim milk powder are monitored for the presence of antibiotic residues. At registered establishments under the Meat Inspection Act, the anti and post mortem inspections conducted include sample tests for evidence of animals being fed or treated prior to slaughter with antibiotics. Specimens of suspected animals and samples of meat are taken periodically for laboratory tests which includes examination for antibiotic residues. The Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, is attempting to reduce the incidence of antibiotic residues in milk, meat and other edible food products containing meat and/or milk by: (a) developing new specific chemical assay methods (b) investigating the possibility of the addition of barmless dyes to mastitis creams containing antibiotics to provide visible markers as indicators of the presence of antibiotics. In addition, provincial and municipal authorities are normally very active in the control of fluid milk. The Health Protection Branch has over the years encouraged such provincial programs and supplied advice on assay methodology.	,
2. The Department of National Health and Welfare has no statistics or documented evidence of any such cases.


Mr. Marshall: What were the results of consultation between the government and the Province of Newfoundland as to the disposal of Pinetree Radar Site taking into account the interest of the government in the location and the property?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: From consultations, the province of Newfoundland has offered to take over the subject site at no charge, excluding the properties to be retained by the various federal services. A review is underway to confirm other federal needs of the side prior to concluding negotiations with the province.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	How many wells have been subsidized under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration's Water Development Programme during the years 1971-72 and 1973-74?
2.	What was the (a) average (b) total cost to the PFRA of the wells?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. The well program did not start until April 1, 1973. In 1973-74 there were 4,492 wells constructed with assistance under the program.
2. (a) $241.93; (b) $1,086,643.15.


Mr. Halliday: 1.	Was a grant under the Student Community Services Programme of the Department of the Secretary of State approved for Project No. OLG2040 as submitted by Information Oxford and, if so, was the local Member of Parliament notified and on what date?
2.	Is it government policy that notice of approval of such grants is made to the Secretary of the local Liberal Association and not to the local Member of Parliament and, if not, did an official of the office of the Secretary of State telephone the Secretary of the Oxford Liberal Association on or about May 29, 1975, to make the initial announcement of the grant?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. (a)
Yes. (b) Letters informing Members of Parliament of grants approved for organizations within their respective ridings under the Student Community Service Program were forwarded to individual members.
2. (a) No. (b) No.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of May 15, 1975, how many persons have been hired (a) by the Public Service Commission (b) under contract by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for duties relating primarily to the implementation and administration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the original employment or commencement of contract?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) None, (b) None. The only persons directly affected by Bill C-13 are two new members of the Northern Canada
July 14, 1975

Power Commission to be appointed to recommendation of the Commissioners in Council from each territory.
2. Not applicable.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Cossitt: Since his appointment as President of the Canadian International Development Agency, how many trips outside of Canada have been made by Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie (a) where did he travel to in each case and for what purpose (b) what are the names of all those accompanying him on each trip along with their job designation and the purpose of their being present?
Return tabled.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SALE OF CANDU REACTORS TO SOUTH KOREA AND ARGENTINA
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the pending negotiations for the sale of CANDU reactors to South Korea and Argentina, which may lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and eventual nuclear war, in order that this House may make it clear that in its opinion such sales carry a great risk of adding to the existing dangers of the nuclear age.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the terms of the Standing Order, the hon. member was good enough to give the Chair notice. There is no doubt, of course, that the hon. member raises a subject which is not only important but has attached to it a certain urgency in view of the fact, as the motion suggests, that negotiations are under way and, therefore, agreements may be reached which ought to be the subject of comment.
It is suggested by the hon. member, as part of his proposed motion, that no other reasonable opportunity will present itself to the House to address itself to the subject, make comments and perhaps influence the outcome of such negotiations. However, it does not seem possible for the Chair to resist recognition of the fact that this subject has been raised several times during the course of this session. It was first raised several weeks ago. From a cursory examination of the index of Hansard, one will realize immediately that with respect to nuclear materials vis-a-vis Argentina there are no fewer than half a dozen references, and on a similar topic in respect of South Korea, probably eight or nine Hansard references to occasions during the past three or four weeks when ques-
Excise Tax Act
tions or notices of motions pursuant to standing Order 43 have been raised.
I do not recall them specifically, and I do not have the references in front of me, but I recall on at least one occasion either the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Acting Prime Minister of the day responded to the question by saying that at that point in the session there were several allotted days remaining, and if the opposition would make use of any of those days the government would co-operate by bringing forward the necessary ministers and documents to make it a meaningful debate. Questions posed today extensively dealt with this matter. Finally, documents were tabled only a few seconds ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) on matters bearing on this subject.
This seems to imply the following: first, it is a matter of continuing concern, as opposed to something which is a crisis at this moment in time, and therefore ought not to be the subject of debate pursuant to Standing Order 26; second, several occasions have presented themselves in the past three or four weeks and those occasions were exhausted by other most worth-while subjects. It is, therefore, improper to say now that no time remains and the House ought to interrupt its business for this special debate. Therefore, I propose to decline the suggestion that this ought to be the subject of a special debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 7416).
Mr. Speaker:: On an earlier day when this matter was under consideration, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a point of order concerning the relationship between the resolution and the bill. At that time, in responding to the initial point of order, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated he would reserve the right to comment further at a later date. In the interim, the hon. member for Edmonton West indicated to the Chair-and, I presume, to the Minister of Finance- that he proposed to make further argument at this time. Perhaps we could pursue the matter and have the decision later this day.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible. Notwithstanding the fact that my leader has moved an amendment to the motion for second reading, that does not mean the bill is in order. We have been carrying on merely to preserve time and to allow you to consider the point of order during the debate.
I am prepared to concede that the minister's point is taken care of by a subsequent change to the bill, but with

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
the greatest respect both to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister, after further examination of the Income Tax Act, what the minister considers to be a minor sin of transgression has now moved into an almost-


An hon. Member:: Venial.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not venial, but a mortal position. May I say that it is almost heresy in so far as the rules of the House are concerned and the way the government has dealt with this particular bill. Paragraph 47 (1) (g) reads:
Where gasoline has been purchased by
(g) a person of such other class of persons as the governor in council
may by regulation prescribe-
That has been changed to read:
Where gasoline has been purchased by
(f) a person within a class of persons exempt from tax under part I
of the Income Tax Act-
The minister has simply said, "This is not a substantial change. There is very little difference. It is really based upon the resolution." A cursory examination of the Income Tax Act shows it is composed of 397 pages of text. There are four sections in that act-in particular, part (h)- which deal with total exemptions. Others deal with partial exemptions. This would mean that what the minister and the House had in contemplation in the presentation of the motion is entirely different from what is prescribed in the bill.
In the course of the budget debate it was indicated that the minister would be flexible with regard to certain classes of purchasers of gasoline, so the minister could prescribe to exempt them. But there will not be the slightest possibility of doing this, because part (h) provides absolutely no latitude. After all, if the minister wanted to be tough, the governor in council could merely fail to prescribe, and nobody would be exempted. On the other hand, the minister could recognize the practical facts of life by providing exemption in certain cases.
When I look at the Income Tax Act, the principal exemption section, section 149, I find a list of those who are exempt from tax and who would, therefore, not be subject to this particular tax; for instance, the diplomatic corps and members of their families, municipal authorities-though there is a question whether an educational authority under a municipality is an exempt body- municipal or provincial corporations, charitable organizations, non-profit corporations, charitable trusts and associations of universities. The list extends to include certain housing corporations, non-profit corporations for scientific research, and labour organizations-it would be interesting to find out whether labour union vehicles will be subject to the ten-cent tax-non-profit organizations, mutual insurance corporations, housing corporations, farmers' and fishermen's insurers.
I go on to section 81 which is another interesting section. It covers, for example, His Excellency the Governor General, certain municipal officials with respect to their expense allowances and members of the legislative assembly with respect to their expense allowances in cer-

tain categories. I draw attention, next, to sections 109 and 110. The reason I mention these exceptions, plus section 6, is that I intend to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take into account the wording of the substitution where it says there shall be "a person within a class of persons exempt from tax under part I." Does this mean they will be totally exempt from tax, or does it mean partially exempt from tax? Is a person in receipt of a war pension which represents 80 per cent of his income supposed to be exempt from the ten cents excise tax? Such a person is exempt from income tax.
Is a senior citizen who is allowed almost double the normal taxpayer's exemption in all other matters, and whose income is just below the level at which he pays income tax, exempt or not when it comes to paying this excise tax? Under part I he is exempt from tax. Take those people who receive GIS which is non-taxable. They are exempt from tax under part I. It does not say "total tax". What is the interpretation?
The minister has told us that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) will explain these matters. This reinforces the point I have endeavoured to make. The bill and the motion are miles apart. There is no way in which the House should be asked to accept the bill in its present form on the basis of the motion the minister chose. He could have brought in a motion in very general terminology, as used to be the practice, and this would have been perfectly fine. Instead, the motion has been worded in terms of the bill. Having elected to do that, the minister must follow, otherwise what is open to the minister is open to any other member of the House, and as long as someone gets within the general target area of the rules that will be sufficient for the Chair when it comes to admitting either a bill or a motion.
We have never proceeded on this basis and I do not think the Chair would ever wish this to become the practice because it would leave room for an unacceptable degree of arbitrariness in decision-making tantamount to policy-making on the part of the Chair.
On the basis of this extended argument, I ask Your Honour to indicate that this is an imperfect bill and that the document has to go back to the drawing board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) or others who may wish to participate in the discussion, may I say this: It seems to me that nothing has been said about a principle which was argued on the other side when the question was first raised. There is no doubt that the language of the resolution and the language of section 1 of the Income Tax Act are substantially different. However, the argument was- and I have some difficulty with it-that the resolution would give, I think on anyone's interpretation, to the minister the power to do what he has done by citing section 1 of the Income Tax Act, only it would give him the power to do it by regulation which would mean it would not have to come before parliament.
If I understand the argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid), instead of taking advantage of that power, one which is generally regarded by parliamentarians as being reprehensible in terms of parliament, instead of taking
July 14, 1975

advantage of the language in the bill, thereby giving the minister, however debatable it might be, the power to do the very thing by regulation that is objected to, the minister has abandoned that power and, using a circumscription that is based on the resolution, has put it in the bill directly.
So not only is the inclusion in section 1 of the Income Tax Act subject to debate in parliament now, but any future changes will be subject to debate in parliament, which generally seems to me to be a narrowing of the power which was given in the resolution as opposed to a broadening of it, and a desirable objective for the minister to follow rather than an undesirable one. Before we go on, I wonder whether the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would address himself to this aspect in principle, since I believe this is fundamental to what we are considering in terms of our practice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is a facile and very naive argument. That is all it is. First of all, the House is induced to adopt a budgetary proposal that is based on a ways and means motion presented in this House. This is a provision that says that the class of persons shall be the class prescribed by the minister by regulation. Already in its debate the House has indicated that it wants the minister to consider certain types of people. But the door has been shut by the minister unilaterally by opting for part I of the Income Tax Act, a law that is totally unrelated.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that by shutting the door, by narrowing the port to those people who may be provided for by regulation, the minister is merely widening the ambit of his taxation. After all, the regulations are to provide for exemptions. If by using part I of the Income Tax Act the minister narrows the port and says, "I am not going to except this small group"-in other words, that he is going to catch everyone in his tax net-I must point out that parliament did not tell the minister he could do that. That is not what parliament has prescribed, and the minister must obey the directions of parliament.
I submit a totally false argument has been advanced. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) was trying to get after me because I do not like regulations. Neither do I like provisions in a bill that are wide open so that a minister can do all and everything in the world. But in this particular case, between the resolution and the presentation of the bill the minister has opted to create a narrow port for his exemptions. If the Chair is realistic and hold members on second reading to relevance, then not one of us can talk about further exemptions because these exemptions are being provided for strictly within the bill. They are in part 1 of the Income tax Act. There is not one regulation in part 1 of the Income Tax Act that allows the minister to widen the exemptions. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the argument that was advanced by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is a red herring and I am surprised it has been taken seriously.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal briefly with the point raised by the hon. member for
Excise Tax Act
Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) by way of retracking his original thinking, he cannot blow hot and cold, as the Scots used to say. He cannot object to the regulatory powers, as he has on several occasions, and now want them in. The power to exempt by regulation involves the power to tax by regulation. I felt that was abhorrent and so we specified. We had a wide, blanket power in the ways and means motion and we have rendered it more precise within what I believe is the authority of parliament to delimit the area over which taxation is to be imposed, and thereby reciprocally the limits by which exemptions ought to be allowed or granted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although I indicated my position with respect to this point of order when it was under debate the other day, since the matter has been revived I should like to say a few words. First of all with respect to the question Your Honour asked, may I make one comment. If I recall correctly, Your Honour asked whether a certain change that the government has made between the ways and means resolution and the bill as presented is desirable. I suggest, with all respect, that that is not the issue. Whether the change is desirable or undesirable is a matter of substance, not of procedure.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made a good debating point in suggesting to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that he cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But look at the bill!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it freezes one. When we argue for things to be done correctly in terms of procedure, it is not the occasion to become involved in positions regarding substance. For example, I can think of occasions when we have tried to get the government to improve a bill. One that comes to my mind immediately is the Medical Care Act some years ago when the Governor General's recommendation did not have in it authority for something we wanted the minister to do. We persuaded the then minister of national health and welfare, who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), to make an amendment to the bill and we agreed that there had to be a new Governor General's recommendation. A Governor General's recommendation respecting a money bill is, I submit, reasonably parallel to a ways and means resolution preceding a bill respecting taxation. Therefore, what we are concerned about is the procedural correctness of what is taking place regardless of the points of view on substance that may arise.
It may be perfectly desirable, something for which we on this side of the House might argue, to have the precise provisions in the bill rather than left to regulation by the governor in council. But I would argue again, as I did the last time, that we really have to get this matter straightened out as to what is to be the form of a ways and means motion. If we want to have ways and means motions that are just general in terms of leaving it to the government to draft a bill based on those general terms, that is fine, it could be done in that way. But in this instance the government has chosen, as it has in several other instances, not to present a ways and means motion that is general but, rather, has presented a ways and means motion that is
7534

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
very specific. The one that was tabled on June 23 and which was approved at the conclusion of the budget debate is a motion to the effect that the Excise Tax Act be amended in certain precise particulars.
The reason I want to keep my remarks short is that all we are talking about is form. All we are talking about is wording. But there are times when these things are very important. It seems to me that for the government to put down what it wants in exact terms and to get a motion passed, and then to bring in a bill that uses a different set of words that could have a different meaning, is latitude that certainly ought not be enjoyed by the government alone. I submit that if the government has latitude to make all these changes between the ways and means resolution and the presentation of the bill, then the same sort of latitude has to be accorded every member of the House, especially when we get into committee of the whole on the bill.
I know we have had a great deal of trouble with this sort of thing, and perhaps it is something that should be sorted out for the future. But it strikes me that today we have the case of a motion having been passed that was very specific. The terms of the motion have now been altered substantially in the wording of the bill, and this is not acting in accordance with the rules. I submit that what ought to happen is that if the government wants to keep the language of Bill C-66 as it is, it should present the House with a new ways and means motion that would undergird this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I want to reiterate to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that desirability is certainly not a factor in the argument. The word "desirability" was used only as an indication that it is generally accepted, which certainly seems to be the case-that is, what has taken place-and this is what gives me difficulty. What has taken place is certainly a taking, in the bill, of less power than was given in the resolution, and that is what seems to be desirable. Whether it is desirable or not is not the question, but whether it is a taking of less power than was in the resolution would direct itself to the question as to whether or not the bill, if accepted, is going beyond the powers given in the resolution, or whether it is based on that. That is the difficulty I have. Whether or not it is desirable is only incidental.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: On that point immediately, Mr. Speaker, I would argue with some force that there is a greater taking of power by the bill than was apparent in the resolution. Section 149 of the Income Tax Act contains a list of exemptions, and you will find included in those eight closely-written pages the corporations and individuals who are outside the provisions of the Income Tax Act and exempt from its application, yet the reference covering municipalities amounts to only one small paragraph. By incorporating section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which I assume is the intent of the bill- and this is what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was referring to-we will have a number of groups that will be exempt from the provisions of the act. So in fact this is an extension of the application of the

ways and means motion. At least it is true to say that this provides that opportunity.
My main reason for rising was to deal with the point that Your Honour very properly suggested the hon. member for Edmonton West should direct his argument to, at least in part, and that is the fact that according to the argument by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) the government has forgone its usual right to act by regulation. I would ask the minister to wipe that angelic look off his face, because he has not done anything of the kind; he is back to his bad practices again. If you look at clause 5, subclause (3), you will see it provides:
For the purposes of subsection (1), the expression "commercial or business purposes" shall have such meaning as the governor in council may determine by regulation.
I would suggest to the Chair that the minister knows very well that by far the greatest number of exemptions will be those given to people who say they are in business for "commercial or business purposes." I would suggest that nine out of every ten will come within the description in that particular section which is 47.1(b). Most of us will agree that there is a fairly accurate dictionary definition to cover this. I know that your Honour and the minister know what is a commercial or a business purpose. A person who applies for an exemption can pretty easily characterize his purpose as commercial or business. When you take that and allow the minister, by subclause (3), to say that the governor in council may by regulation determine what "commercial or business purposes" means, then I suggest this is taking a greater power than has ever been taken before in matters of this kind.
I am not so much concerned about the power by regulation to extend or limit the kind of business or commercial enterprise in respect of those people who are usually included for the purpose of providing an exemption, and I would suggest that under the circumstances, so far as that part of the argument is concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, along with everyone else, is caught by that subclause.
Your Honour may rely more on the general principle of Standing Order 60 (11) which provides:
The adoption of any ways and means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has argued that the government and the opposition are caught by that rule and we both should be restricted and restrained in our efforts to bring in an amendment which conforms to that rule. If there is freedom for the government to operate freely, easily or loosely in the application of that rule, then that freedom should attach itself as well to the opposition and private members.
I finally add what I had intended to say, that after all it is not such a great step for the government to send its minister to Government House. I used to think that someone actually had to go down to Government House to get a recommendation. I find that is not the case. A new recommendation can be obtained as a result of a very brief visit to an office in this building or a consultation in the lobby. A new recommendation or a new ways and means motion can then be brought in.
July 14, 1975

I suggest it would be much better to observe the proprieties of the situation and to compel the government-which seeks to obtain from this House, as the guardians of the public purse, certain taxing privileges-rigidly and completely to abide by the rules and regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: As usual, hon. members have been most helpful in their interventions. Up to this point I might indicate that our researchers have developed a file which I now have in my hand. The arguments that have been presented today have, frankly, not done a single thing to resolve the matter in my mind. It has been left open since the first day of the argument, and it remains open. I take it, basically, that there is agreement with the method which has been employed in the bill and that it is within the general power given in the resolution. There is no doubt about that as it is left within the power which is provided for in the resolution.
The argument is not so much whether it is more-I should not say "more", because "more" would certainly be out of order-or whether it is a taking of less power but, rather, that even if that is accepted, which seems generally to be the case in argument, it is so substantially different in language and in approach that it ought to be ruled out of order on the ground that it is not even based on the terms of the resolution. That is something to which I shall have to give further consideration. Hopefully, I will be able to deliver my ruling on this question later this day, perhaps at five o'clock or at 5.45. When I have determined that matter, I will see that the House leaders are advised as far in advance as possible.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), let me say that I cannot see how any reasonable person in this House could disagree with it. It brings to mind the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) when we were discussing Petro-Canada, Bill C-8. Throughout that entire debate the minister stated that the main reason the bill was being brought forth was to ensure Canadians an adequate and reliable supply of energy at a reasonable price. Recent measures included in the budget, particularly this bill, have shown us just how concerned this government is about reliable supplies. There is nothing in this bill to spur development or aid the conservation of our oil products.
Recent measures have also shown us how concerned this government is about the supply of Canadian gasoline at reasonable prices. The 10-cent excise tax is going completely to the federal government. Let us ask the average Canadian if he feels that the 10-cent excise tax is a reasonable form of taxation. This tax measure alone will add at least one-half a percentage point to our consumer price index as estimated by Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada reported that consumer prices were up during June, the biggest increase in more than a year, and measures such as this bill make many Canadians wonder what concern this government has has for the Canadian consumer.
Excise Tax Act
Let us ask the Liberal-socialists, once again, how the Canadian people will profit from this measure. Let us remember a statement of Lenin's in which he said that the way to destroy the middle class is to crush it between the grindstones of taxation and inflation. That is just what this government is doing. The inadequacies, not only of this bill but of the many proposals put forward by this government, make me more and more aware each day that it does 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. I believe it is time there was a restoration of ideals and principles to their rightful place in our national politics.
There is no policy in this bill. It has been stated that proposals such as this and Bill C-8 are part of an over-all policy, but we have not been told what the total package will be in respect of an energy policy. It is my feeling that this government wishes a total package of government ownership and socialism. Petro-Can is an example of this. Let us remember that social justice must not be mistaken for socialism or for welfarism, because they are two different things. Let us not think that socialists have a corner on compassion. Indeed, one thing I have noticed about them is that their compassion bears a marked relationship to their distance from an object and its source of funds and aid. They have great enthusiasm for public money going to foreign countries and wonderful projects, but they have somewhat less enthusiasm for private money going to individual Canadians. They are great at giving out money so long as it is the public's money, but we dare not touch their pocket.
My complaint is that those feelings of compassion have been smothered by years of state expansion until Canadians expect the state to do everything. We must have a policy based on returning the state to its proper function of serving the individual, and not the other way around. A socialist is one who thinks he knows all the answers. In fact, he thinks he knows even better than the individual himself what is best for the individual. I believe the government is doing exactly the same thing. He strives, just as the government strives, for complete government domination of the economy and believes that the government should own or at least control our most productive capital. It is called "public ownership", or "belonging to the people". These are great and woolly phrases.
Is it the intention of the government to destroy personal initiative? If so, the government certainly is going about it in the most effective way. I feel strongly this is what the government is doing; it is destroying personal initiative.
I wonder whether one can imagine the type of bureaucracy that will be needed to calculate the return of the ten cents to those who are exempt from this ten-cent excise tax. Contrary to the alleged philosophy, it is abundantly clear that the Liberal Party is involving the government more and more in practically every aspect of the lives of Canadians. Nor is there any shred of evidence which would indicate it intends to reduce this involvement. What I find to be the most insidious aspect of the dependency of so many on the largesse of the Liberal Party is
29576-63)4

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
what it will do to a truly democratic and free election. Canada would then be socialist in everything but name.
What is really needed, I feel, is a set of realistic longterm guidelines. This has been conspicuously absent in this proposal. The function of government in promoting Canada's economic growth is to encourage and create initiative and incentive to operate for the good of individuals in society, and to ensure that the Canadian economy will serve the common good of all Canadians. It is necessary to combine economic growth, price stability, taxation equity and regional development. This would not reject the need for government control or participation in specific areas. However, it would require that the state not stifle the ability of Canadians to make their own decisions within the framework of social order and economic justice. It needs imaginative government action, directed toward the potential of people themselves, to put the economy on a sound footing.
Sound personal thinking and government rationale are apparently quite different to this Liberal administration. I believe that is exemplified in this bill in respect of the ten-cent excise tax on gas. This legislation will do nothing but steal ten cents from the Canadian consumer for every gallon of gasoline he or she uses, and will create a bureaucracy to administer it. The budget proposals announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) amount to a 15 cents increase to motorists and a 20 per cent increase in the cost of home heating. This will generate almost $2 billion in additional revenues; but, once again, most of these funds go to governments, not to expansion of the energy supply. All of the ten-cent excise tax on gasoline will go to Ottawa, and five-sixths of the $1.50 increase per barrel of oil will go to the producing provinces and the federal government.
This grab will have severe repercussions in Canada and will add considerably to the consumer price index. It will damage our tourist and recreation businesses and will hit particularly hard at the auto industry and its more than 100,000 employees just as it begins to recover momentum. The Minister of Finance referred to new realities but in my view ignored completely the important old realities of jobs, economic growth and price moderation. No energy policy can be responsible when it undermines the livelihood of so many of our citizens.
The Minister of Finance professed restraint on federal spending. This is a cynical illusion. In each of the last two years there have been runaway increases in federal spending of almost 30 per cent, which have directly fueled inflation. Now that the damage is done, we are told that Ottawa intends to exercise restraint. Some restraint! Instead of the 15,000 additional civil servants originally planned for 1975-76, only 12,000 will be added to the public payrolls this year, at a cost of $150 million per year. Real restraint would call for zero growth in the public service, Instead of increasing the payroll by $150 million, such a 3 per cent cut would have saved $150 million, thereby avoiding the need for the ten-cent excise tax on motorists.
On June 24, 1975, Mr. C. J. Clark, president of the Canadian Automobile Association, stated that his association, representing 1,250,000 Canadian motorists, views the government's announced increase in gasoline prices as inequitable and excessive, requiring immediate re-exami-

nation and revision. The association requested an immediate meeting with the Minister of Finance to review this alarming imposition. This increase places an unjust direct taxation on all private motorists and creates an added hardship for the majority of motorists who are in the lower and middle income groups. This excessive gasoline price increases appears to be an unjustified move to increase government revenue at the expense of those who can least afford it.
The Canadian Automobile Association urged the federal government earlier this year to participate in a joint program of voluntary conservation of gasoline to avoid the necessity of more drastic measures. Imposing excess taxation under the guise of energy conservation, and forcing motorists to utilize public transportation, is unacceptable. With 85 per cent of all passenger trips in Canada undertaken by automobile, and the majority of Canadians requiring their transportation to and from work, it is impractical to force Canadians to use public transportation by imposing economic sanctions. The majority of vacation travel is by automobile. Excessive taxation will decrease tourism revenues in Canada. This increased tax will force Canadians either to cancel vacation travel plans or change their intention to travel in Canada; they will travel to United States destinations. Tourists from the United States will be discouraged from travelling in Canada.
Is it not inequitable that the federal government should place a direct taxation of this magnitude on private motorists, while excluding other forms of transportation which consume petroleum energy? In closing, let me once again state that the government will receive the bulk of this money, none of it will go toward exploration, and it is a fallacy for us to believe that they are concerned about conserving our energy or finding new energy sources.
In Toronto, the president of Gulf Oil Canada stated that he is distressed and concerned at the fact that the new federal budget completely ignored the root cause of the current crisis in the oil industry, which resulted from governments taking almost all of the increases while leaving little or nothing to the industry to spend on increased exploration. No matter what sort of face the government will put on, the important thing for the public to realize is that none of the funds resulting from the new ten-cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline or the $1.50 per gallon on crude oil will go to the oil companies for exploration. The excise tax may have some effect in reducing consumption, but the sad truth is that Canada cannot conserve enough to ensure adequate supplies for the future. That can only be accomplished by a vigorously stimulated exploration program. It is unfortunate that this government is trying to create the illusion that the budget will increase exploration. It is also regrettable that as a smokescreen the government is doing its best to pin the blame for these increases on the industry. But now that the public is being affected personally, they will be more aware of where their money is going.
I should like to come back to the statement I quoted earlier, a statement made by lenin which I find to be very truthful, that the way to destroy the middle class is to crush it between the grindstones of taxation and inflation.
July 14, 1975

This legislation and many other proposals put forward by this government prove to me that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this government are strong believers and followers of Lenin. In support of this statement, let me once again emphasize Lenin's words that the way to destroy the middle class is to crush it between the grindstones of taxation and inflation. That is just what we find this Liberal administration doing. We now have a modern Lenin in our Prime Minister. Most people living in my part of Canada have settled there to escape this philosophy. That is the simple reason there is so much opposition to the Liberal party and its proposals in western Canada.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks it is necessary for me, as a lifelong observer of socialist behaviour, to exonerate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) from the charge of possessing any tendencies in that direction. Whatever his faults or virtues may be, being a socialist would be right at the bottom of the list.
In looking at this budget and every budget that I have seen, there is always a problem for the opposition in the sense that no budget is totally without merit and sometimes the opposition finds it a little difficult to exercise its traditional role of opposing when it is faced with certain budgets. However, fortunately or unfortunately, this budget does not present any problem for any member of the opposition, or perhaps even for any member of the government. With one exception, it is worthless; criticism comes very easily and any criticism that is made is almost totally justified. The only measure of merit in the budget is that people holding Canadian annuities who are getting 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent on them will receive an increase. Once you have said that there is nothing further that can be said in praise of the budget.
To the extent that it is possible to even feel sorry for the Minister of Finance-and I think sorrow, regret and pity are misplaced with regard to the Minister of Finance of this country-it is possible to feel compassion for the minister in this case. He has been handed the thankless job of trying to do a patch job on a house which is rocking; trying to prop up a whole set of economic policies which are stupid and unworkable. This cannot be done with a budget, particularly this budget.
The minister is of the view that popularity is not everything. If that is his view, then he will achieve his objective; he will certainly not be very popular after this budget. Sometimes when one sees the behaviour of the federal Liberals, one thinks they still believe Mitch Hepburn is alive in Ontario and they try to do everything they can to get the Liberals in Ontario defeated. I think they have succeeded. Mitch Hepburn's ghost may still be there and it will certainly influence the next election.
When the Minister of Finance, whom I understand has some leadership ambitions for his party, goes to the convention, I think one of the people on whose support he should not count is Mr. Robert Nixon, the leader of the party in Ontario, and a whole batch of delegates from that province. He may even have difficulty with some of the delegates from Manitoba. I understand that two by-elections took place there in which the Liberal candidates attributed their defeat to the budget before us. The Minister of Finance seems to have adopted a school of thought
Excise Tax Act
which believes that, election years excepted, for something to be good it must hurt. This makes him feel very noble.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: It
depends on whom it hurts.


Max Saltsman: I think the minister should understand that there are things which hurt that are not noble, uplifting or good for anybody; they are simply foolish and a form of self-flagellation. Instead of a moral uplift, all you wind up with is a whole bunch of welts on the body.
We are all interested in conservation. The minister, in again bringing forward the idea that the excise tax is an exercise in conservation, is misleading the public, especially when he talks about energy. People want to conserve energy, there is no question about that, but this is not a conservation proposal. By bringing in this excise tax, we will not conserve energy in this country. The minister himself recognizes this by granting all kinds of exemptions to business, to charitable organizations, to farmers, and so on. In fact, what he is doing is giving an exemption to every kind of organized group able to protest. The ones whom he is not exempting are the consumers who have no way of protesting, particularly in years that are not election years.
There are many ways in which conservation could be carried out, but the minister's proposals are probably the worst and the most unworkable. This is not a conservation proposal at all; it is a way of raising tax revenues and of trying to cover up the fact that the minister badly miscalculated the revenues he was going to receive. Now he uses the guise of conservation to raise revenues, and he is raising them from the wrong people. About the only thing the government seems to be conserving with this measure is the use of its brains; it is certainly hiding them and not making any use of them.
When it comes to raising revenue on oil, the government has provided itself with a way of raising it either coming or going. Until very recently, in an effort to equalize oil and gas prices across Canada the government relied almost entirely on the export tax; the revenue from the export tax was sufficient to ensure that the price would be equalized across the country. Now we have correctly decided that we cannot continue to export at the rate we have exported in the past, and therefore that revenue is diminished. The government brought in a measure which would disallow royalty payments paid to provincial governments before federal taxes, and by doing so it vastly increased its potential to raise federal revenue. So in fact the government was going to receive increased revenue through these measures and it was criticized by the provinces for taking this tax. It was in a position to finance the equalization of gasoline taxes. But that did not seem to suit the purposes of the government.
Where did the government go wrong? The give-away program of the government was so generous that tax revenues to the federal government from corporations declined dramatically. Over the year, the government anticipated that its revenue from corporate tax would be in the neighbourhood of $5 billion. Instead, that figure had

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
to be revised to $4,285 million. That is for the current fiscal year. While the figure is down 12 per cent, in the next fiscal year revenue from corporations will be down by 28 per cent. The government has been very generous to corporations, with taxpayers' money. The consequence is that what it has not received from corporations the government will now have to receive from individuals in this country.
This emerges very clearly when we consider the revenues and expenditures on a national accounts basis. Until about 15 years ago the revenue the government collected from personal income taxes was roughly the same amount as that collected from corporate taxes. Year by year this ratio has changed. There are reasons this ratio should change, but not to the extent it has. Corporate tax revenues at one time being quite close to income tax revenues, we now have a gap between the two in which direct taxes by persons amount to $14,250 million and direct taxes from corporations amount to $4,646 million according to the 1974-75 preliminary estimates. In other words, personal income tax amounts to almost four times that of corporate income tax. The situation gets worse in the 1975-76 forecast, where direct taxes from persons are calculated at $16,120 million while direct taxes from corporations are calculated at $4,445 million. That is why the government is in trouble, that is why the government has to raise new revenues, and that is why it is hiding behind the guise of conservation to impose what amounts to a direct tax on the ordinary individuals of this country.
In the last couple of budgets the government has prided itself on how many people it has knocked off the income tax rolls. After the whole amount is totalled, it would appear that the government knocked more people off the income tax rolls than were on them. Nevertheless, each budget up to the present one has prided itself on having taken, for example, 200,000 people or 145,000 people off the income tax rolls, but in this budget hundreds of thousands of Canadians will be put back on the income tax rolls. It will not look like income tax because it will be collected through the gasoline tax, but there is no way most Canadians can avoid driving their private automobiles if they want to get to work in this country. That is significant. The government has done this in an underhanded, back door method instead of doing it directly by way of income tax.
I think it is quite clear that all the concessions this government has given to industries have resulted in a further tax burden being imposed on the ordinary citizens of this country. There is no such thing as tax avoidance. Where one group of people or corporations is exempted from income tax or corporation tax, another group has to make up for it, unless the government reduces its expenditures-and most government expenditures cannot be reduced; they are pretty well locked in because they are expenditures and disbursements of funds from one group to another, or transfer payments of one kind or another. All these great efforts to reduce government expenditures have not succeeded. I think that is the essential explanation for this tax being imposed.
If the Canadian people were asked to forgo these corporate taxes, as a result increasing personal taxes on themselves, and this was accomplishing some useful purpose,

that would be understandable. It might be regrettable and we might argue about the inequity of it, but at least someone could say it was practical and it was working. The truth of the matter is that in spite of these billions of dollars of concessions to corporations, we are facing the highest rate of unemployment this country has had since the depression. This country is not growing. All these give-aways are not working. The feeble attempts of the government in its questionnaire to prove that these corporate give-aways had some effect has fallen flat on its face. The industries themselves which reported, to their credit, said that their investments had not really improved because of what the government gave them in special tax concessions. So essentially the situation is that the government has given away vast sums of money and those vast sums in give-aways have not contributed to the economic prosperity of this country but have only imposed an extra load on Canadians who are not in corporate positions.
If the government were serious about conservation, there are ways in which it could be carried out with greater fairness. The present method is rationing by price, or hoping to ration by price, which must be the most unjust way of doing it because it falls on all. Obviously, when the government rations by price, the poor are hurt infinitely more than the rich who have some flexibility in their incomes and some flexibility, as it turns out, because many are involved in occupations where costs can be written off. Once business is exempted, an enormous unfairness is introduced into the whole situation, because what do people involved in business care? They care to some extent, I presume, but it does not hurt to the same extent it hurts the ordinary working man who cannot deduct the cost of his car or the cost of the gasoline which goes into his car in the way a businessman, salesman, a professional man or many other people who are living on expense allowances can. That is grossly unfair. It is absolutely the worst, most inequitable way to carry out a conservation program. It would be inequitable even if it worked, and I do not think it will work.
If we want to have conservation and we want people to do something about conservation, surely one of the conditions is that it must appear to be fair. We cannot ask the poor to carry out conservation, while the rich are able to deduct. Where is the logic of the argument? The government argues that the reason business has been exempted is that business will only pass on the costs in their products and the services they provide; therefore you must exempt business to keep prices down. Is it not to work the same way for the workingman? If the workingman now negotiating a new contract finds that it costs more to travel from home to his place of work, will he not ask, justifiably, for a larger wage to compensate for the increase? Of course he will.
The Minister of Finance said that excessive wage demands added much to our inflation. Where is the logic of his position? He wants to hold down costs. Why not exempt workers from gasoline tax they must pay on their transportation to and from work. Why should not the workingman be entitled to an exemption from the gasoline tax on the same basis as the businessman is entitled to an
July 14, 1975

exemption? I suggest that such an exemption will reduce wage claims. Without it, they will be larger. Do you think that the ordinary man who cannot deduct his extra costs will consider our sytem fair and think he ought to support it in order to conserve petroleum? How can the minister's dual system claim merit or the allegiance of people who will be affected by the injustices so obviously built into the bill?
Workers must use automobiles. Many of us favour public transportation and hope that one day an adequate public transportation system will reduce our dependence on the automobile. It is no use saying that there are many arguments supporting public as against private transport. The fact is that the public transportation is not there and, even with the best intentions on the government's part, we shall see only limited public transportation for some time to come.
It is unrealistic to suggest that people need not pay the gasoline tax, that they can transfer from private to public transport. First, the infrastructure underlying public transport is not in place in this country. Second, even if we could establish the necessary infrastructure it will be many years before people can switch from private to public transport. So we are left with the automobile, with all its faults. Clearly, the automobile is not used for pleasure alone; it enables many people to hold down their jobs. People drive 40 or 50 miles to work, and not just in my riding. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said that it is a fact of life in his riding that many people must travel 40 or 50 miles to and from their jobs. One could say that the hon. member's riding is an exception, as the important activities involve logging and fishing, that long distances travelled to work must be accepted and the circumstances in the riding are unusual. I suggest they are not unusual.
I represent a highly urbanized riding and people travel vast distances to work. It is not unusual for someone living in Kitchener or Guelph to work in Cambridge, or for someone living in Cambridge to commute to Kitchener or Guelph every day. People do not live next door to the factory. Jobs change, new skills are required all the time, and factories move; therefore, mobility is important. I am sure the minister will be the first to admit that worker mobility is one way of increasing the efficient allocation of workers. Do you want to make it more expensive for workers to be mobile? Does the minister want to destroy that aspect of manpower policy?
I return to something I said earlier: one part of the budget tries to patch the problems created by another part, by dismal economic policies of the government. Apparently one government program offsets the effects of another. One must ask, what is the Minister of Finance trying to accomplish with the budget? Sorry though I am for the minister who must shore-up a crumbling house, I think he could have done better than produce this particular budget.
The government had many options open to it. Did the minister feel that the government needed more revenue, that the export tax was not bringing in enough money, or that disallowing royalties paid to provinces was not enough? Clearly, he wanted to maintain a single oil price for all Canadians. After all, when you live in a. country
Excise Tax Act
you do not expect one part to suffer for the benefit of another. As an aside, let me comment on the minister's potshots at the province of Ontario. On the eve of a provincial election in Ontario you hear many political comments which otherwise would not arise. The minister suggested that Ontario was being terribly selfish in opposing the oil provinces' claims to higher revenues. What he forgot to mention was that the province of Ontario, despite all its faults, supported the national oil policy for 11 years and paid more than it needed to for western oil and gas because it wanted to stimulate the development of the western energy industry.
Ontario could have bought oil cheaper offshore. In 11 years the people of Ontario spent $500 million more than they needed to, to get the western oil industry off the ground. People conveniently forget this. They figure that the demand for oil was always there, and forget that 20 years ago you couldn't give oil away. The Americans did not want our oil, neither did anyone else. Offshore oil was coming to eastern ports at cut-rate prices. But the Canadian government said, "We are going to guarantee the market for western crude to the Ottawa Valley line." Ontario agreed to abide by the national oil policy for 11 years and not once did the people of Ontario complain, not once was a nasty editorial printed saying that the people of Ontario were being milked to pay for the oil industry of the west. We were right not to complain because without the western oil industry our situation would be desperate. As it is, we were able to develop a magnificent petroleum industry-not as magnificent as the one which could have been developed under socialist governments-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: -but it is magnificent all the same. We must speak the truth in the House of Commons.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What has happened to the industry in Saskatchewan under a socialist government?


Max Saltsman: The people of Saskatchewan are doing well under the socialist government.


An hon. Member:: Wait until the next election. They will soon be free.


Max Saltsman: That is not one's impression if one is campaigning there. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, it is right to equalize the price across the country. Few will argue against that policy. Most Canadians agree that the policy is necessary if the country is to remain united. What is in contention is how the single price policy is to be financed. What has the government done? It has chosen a most regressive way, one that is almost designed to discredit conservation and to make people most angry. There were other ways open to the government. There is another way that other countries have followed. We have done it in wartime. I refer to conserving by rationing. If that is to be the policy, ration cards could be issued or there could be some other way whereby each person would pay a minimum amount on the preferred price. I am not discounting the administrative problems. However, with all the exemptions in this bill it will be an administrative nightmare. If we say we have to exempt the farmer, the busi-

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
nessman, charitable organizations, and so on, that kind of checking will not be much more difficult than having a voucher system.
These administrative problems are not my first choice. I do not like exemptions of any kind. Exemptions create enormous difficulties and unfairness. They also open the way to all kinds of underhand dealings. This also applies to the coupon scheme I was suggesting. Certainly that would not be the first way I would want to go. As bad as it may be, I suggest it would be infinitely preferable to rationing by price, which does not take into account any of the considerations of energy. Why should the poor man pay as much as the rich man, particularly when the rich man can find ways of avoiding this kind of tax?
The minister could have accomplished a number of objectives if he had imposed a very substantial surtax on incomes beyond a certain level. In replies in this House and in speeches outside the House the minister has complained bitterly about some people using their bargaining power in the marketplace to take advantage of the situation, increasing their real income beyond that of others. The minister tried to find an answer. He tried to develop a consensus policy to deal with this problem. It did not work. Consensus just was not there. It was obvious that voluntary restraints and voluntary programs were not going to work.
I do not know whether it is the Minister of Finance or the government which will not bring in an incomes policy. I do not mean just a wage policy but one that takes into account all forms of income. The government says there is no consensus in this country for such a policy. Perhaps there is not as that kind of policy obviously needs a wide consensus to be effective. If the minister was not able to do those things, the very least he should have done was impose a surtax on incomes above a certain figure. Those who have gained extraordinarily from their bargaining power would have repaid a lot of it in income tax. That is what the minister and the government should have done. That money could have been used to compensate for any equalization program we need for gasoline.
I think it is probably desirable to bring in a gasoline tax at some point, provided it is coupled with something to remove the regressive nature of the tax. All sales taxes, by their performance, have to be regressive because they apply equally, regardless of one's ability to pay. However, there are ways of removing their regressive nature. One way is to introduce a tax credit system whereby people with certain incomes will get rebates, either on their income tax or on a cash basis, to compensate for the effects of the tax. That would make sales taxes effective and equitable. However, this was not done. All we got was a regressive tax imposed in the name of conservation. It will have no effect whatsoever on conservation. It will constitute an enormous burden on the poor and a grievance on the part of every Canadian who has no way out of it.
The public might have been able to accept this tax as necessary if it felt it was going for some constructive purpose. I have referred to the Ontario argument. They accept the fact that we have to pay more for oil and gasoline in order to assure an energy supply in the furture.

The public is prepared to bear taxes and even to accept some regressiveness if they see that the money is going directly to improve their future prospects for energy. Instead, however, much of the revenue being raised will be given to the private corporations in the energy field, with no guarantee that more exploration will be carried out, that it will be of the kind we want and that the future energy needs of this country will be met.
If we are going to spend this kind of money to invest in our future, why do we have so little faith in the corporation that is set up and able to do this? Why not do that and explore according to our own needs? We did an admirable job in hydro and we have done a good job in other areas. I do not know why the Minister of Finance will not do this. It is certainly not because he is a socialist. Sometimes I wish he had a little more socialism in him than he has shown.
If you said to a businessman, "We have the money, but instead of investing in it ourselves, taking the equity and getting some guarantees on our priorities, we have given it to some other guy with no strings attached and told him to go out and use it", he would say," You are crazy. That is a terrible business deal." You would have to be an economic ignoramus to do that. But that is exactly what the government is doing. They are taking this inequitable tax, which is a terrible burden on this country, and giving it to the corporations which will not guarantee future energy supplies for this country. These corporations are saying to the government that unless it is very, very generous they will not co-operate. Who the hell needs them? Do they have such a hold on knowledge that if they walk out of this country nothing will get done? What is the justification? Private enterprise gambles its own money; it does not gamble the public's money without even providing a guarantee.
Taken all together, one has to ask why in the world there would be any support on the part of the public for this kind of a budget. Why in the world should people pay taxes in an unfair way in order to fatten the profit sheets of corporations which are not responsive to the national need? In the other budgets I have seen over the years there was always something which one could say was good. Indeed, I recall an occasion on which the Minister of Finance quoted to members of my party some of the things I had said favourable to the budget he had brought in. But there is nothing about the present budget which contains any redeeming quality whatsoever.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by reminding the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that this was a very important day in history a great many years ago. I can see him thinking. It was Bastille day. He will recall that 186 years ago the poor people of Paris revolted against the king and the aristocracy on this date. Before I came to the House this afternoon, I looked out over the lawns in front of the parliament buildings to see whether there was a great demonstration against this iniquitous ten cents tax; I wondered whether the minister's beautiful premises in the west block had been invaded by an angry crowd. Probably not. But it would not have surprised me, because since I came here in 1972, in that brief period there have been
July 14, 1975

demonstrations in front of this building on issues not nearly as important. Such a demonstration today might have brought home to the government just how serious this tax is.
I want to make a few remarks about the bill before us and about the amendment in the name of our leader to give it a six months' hoist. I should like to see it given 106 months' hoist if possible. I had an opportunity to speak in the budget debate on July 4. Nothing has changed since then, and I am sure nothing will change. But somehow those on this side of the House, the responsible side, must get through to the government and point out that this kind of legislation imposes a great strain on the economy. Everybody knows by now that it is simply a tax grab, and the benefits to be gained by its imposition are peanuts when compared to the damage that will be done to the average Canadian citizen.
I pointed out in my earlier remarks that the increase in the excise tax of ten cents per gallon, added to the 10 per cent increase in tax on small boat motors imposed last year, is just too much for a large number of tourist operators to absorb. At times, Mr. Speaker, it seems as though the government sets out to strangle the country's tourist industry. My riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka depends heavily on tourism to maintain a decent economic level and to provide badly needed jobs. I might add that the tourist industry is the second largest industry in Canada today and it will not be too many years before it moves up into first place.
I say to the Minister of Finance and his so-called economic experts that it gets pretty frustrating to stand up in the House day after day, pleading with the government to exercise some plain common sense in drafting these bills. After you have robbed Peter to pay Paul and find that source has run out, you find yourself going back to rob Paul. I am forced to wonder at times, Mr. Speaker, if the government's economic whizkids draw straws to see what segment of our economy they should try to destroy next.
The minister has not told us what the government plans to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars it will raise from the increased tax on gasoline. All we know is that it will go in general revenue and it certainly won't be used to build roads in Ontario. As far as the increase of $200 million the government has allotted to the housing budget this year is concerned, all I can say is "big deal". I could use almost that much in Parry Sound-Muskoka alone, Mr. Speaker. But then what would the big cities use to provide housing for the tens of thousands of people who go into the cities every year in search of jobs?
I see that the government also intends to plow another $285 million into that short-term, make-work project, the Local Initiatives Program. This is really an attempt to pad the unemployment figures. A few thousand people are given a month or two of employment, many of them on useless or even kooky projects, and they are taken off the unemployment rolls for a while so that the government can claim that thousands of new jobs have been created during a period when in fact thousands of people were added to the unemployment rolls.
If the government is so anxious to raise extra revenue that it will invade the tax- preserves of the provinces, namely, the gasoline tax, then the Canadian people have a
Excise Tax Act
right to expect the government to use that money on sensible, responsible programs that are designed to solve some of the long-standing problems facing the country. The $285 million earmarked for LIP projects could be put to better use in a job training scheme which would prepare people to fill jobs with some meaning and some potential for career opportunities. The $70 million allotted to this type of job training in the recent budget shows the government places a lower priority on career opportunities than on the LIP program. Of course, LIP projects are more fun than training for a career in business or industry. I wonder what the average employer would feel about an applicant for a job who, when asked what training he or she had, could only say his experience amounted to two months on a LIP project.
I turn, now, to a letter I received concerning the excise tax on gasoline. It comes to me from the manager of the Almaguin-Nipissing Travel Association, Incorporated, of North Bay. I think it is self-explanatory.
Dear Mr. Darling,
As manager of the Almaguin-Nipissing Travel Association I have been instructed by the board of directors to write to you and express this association's dismay over the recently imposed increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline.
This area of our country is, as you know, highly dependent on the tourism industry for a healthy economy and this additional burden on the motoring public will most assuredly have an adverse effect on the volume of business done by our tourist operators who depend heavily on a good flow of auto traffic into our area to maintain the financial viability of their operations.
With in excess of 500 tourist operations within our association's boundaries, you can well visualize the effect such a disturbing tax can and will have on the economic wellbeing of our area. It is hoped that this decision will be reversed in the very near future.
I might mention to the minister that when I got up yesterday morning-it was in the home town of our honourable Speaker, Sudbury, where I had attended a banquet-I happened to turn on the television and I listened to that great evangelist, Oral Roberts, speaking. As I was getting dressed, he was talking about a minister who was called on the carpet by his congregation. They said to him, "Pastor, all you are doing is preaching on one subject- repent, repent, repent. We are sick of it." He said, "Well, that is too bad, because until you repent I am going to keep on doing it." I am wondering whether after all the criticism he has received urging repentance, the minister will consider abandoning or at least changing this tax, cutting it by half on the principle that half a loaf is better than none.


John Napier Turner: What is half of repentance worth?


Stan Darling: It doesn't matter. It is something for the minister to consider. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the brunt of the increase will fall on the shoulders of those who are already carrying the load as far as taxes are concerned. However, the real damage is being done to those who can least afford it, the elderly, the working poor and those who require their automobiles in their struggle to find and to hold a job. The government doesn't seem to care a fig about those who are trying to make a living in the tourist business, or those who would like to be able to drive around and see their own country when they get a little time off from their jobs. It would also appear that
7542

800,000 to one million unemployed persons. Although we are speaking of statistics here, we must remember we are also speaking about human beings. The situation is a human tragedy and the budget that we are debating does not do one blessed thing for these people. In fact, the effect of this budget will be to create even more unemployment. We should be doing everything possible to create thousands of new jobs.
May I mention one other matter of which I am sure the minister is aware. He had no trouble whatever in tacking on this ten cents tax, and lo and behold it greeted us about one minute after midnight on June 23. A good many dealers took advantage of it and made a few extra bucks on the side by putting the ten cents on right away. But what about the poor businessman and others who want this money back as soon as possible, money to which they are entitled?
I know we will be told that this legislation will provide for the repayment of this tax, but last weekend when I got home I received a telephone call from a farmer. Although it is only a small amount, he had to buy 200 gallons of gas for his farm. This is money that he has tied up. There is not a heck of a lot of money involved, but nevertheless he wants to know when he will get it back. I told him I was hoping to have the opportunity of saying a word or two on the excise tax some time this week, and that I would certainly try and get an answer for him regarding when it would be possible to get the money back. Then in the mail today I received a letter from Muskoka Containerized Services Ltd., of Bracebridge, Ontario. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Darling:
I believe the enclosed letter is self-explanatory.
Rather than writing me or writing the minister, this firm wrote a letter to the great Liberal paper, the Toronto Star.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: I am glad to hear that it is not as Liberal as I thought. In any event, it is certainly a newspaper with a reasonable amount of coverage.


An hon. Member:: How about the Forester?


Stan Darling: There is nothing wrong with the Huntsville Forester, just as there is nothing wrong with any of the six weeklies in my riding. That one is one of the finest in the whole country, let me tell you. Anyway, this letter should certainly be put on the record, and hopefully the minister will be able to answer some of its questions. It is addressed to the editor of the Toronto Star and reads:
Our federal bureaucracy is wonderful-isn't it?
We operate a trucking business and were recently charged an additional ten cents per gallon to cover the new federal excise tax on gasoline. It was my understanding that commercial firms were not to be charged this tax; however, it is being charged. In this case it amounts to $180 per tank load!
On Monday, June 30th, I phoned the toll free number for Revenue Canada-
That is Hon. Ron Basford and company. The letter goes on:
Excise Tax Act
-to enquire about this taxation. They gave me a number to call in Toronto. I then made a long distance call to Toronto and talked to a gentleman at Revenue Canada who gave me another number to call at the excise branch. The switchboard said the "office" lines were busy so I left my name and number and waited for them to return the call.
By Friday, July 4th, they had not returned the call so I, in turn, called them.
None of the gentlemen I talked with could tell me anything except that they were awaiting instructions from Ottawa! A gentleman from the Excise Tax Department said that they expected that within the next one to two months they would get some guidelines from Ottawa-
Maybe they are being optimistic in that regard. The letter continues:
-as to how this tax money was to be refunded to commercial firms. He advised me to keep the receipts for the gallons purchased, but he couldn't tell me when this money would be refunded nor what department would be handling this refund!
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this should be set up now so that this information will be available even though these people are not going to get their money back for some time. The letter continues as follows:
It simply amazes me that the government can force the oil companies to collect an additional ten cents per gallon and not be able to tell me when this (supposedly refundable) tax will be refunded! Can you imagine how much money will be involved in the government offices interest-free if every commercial firm in Canada does not get this refund for the next year or so?
I hope it will be paid before then, Mr. Speaker. The letter then states:
It seems to be another example of the federal government's rules which are put into effect long before proper procedures and policies are instituted. My only question to the Minister of Revenue is as follows:
When is my money to be refunded?
As I said at the start of the letter-isn't our federal bureaucracy wonderful?
This is just another case which points out why this tax is unfair. The people do not know when they are going to get this money back. The people who are entitled to some assistance in this regard are persons who drive to and from work, but they will get nothing back at all. Many of them do not make enough to pay income tax, yet they have to drive from 40 to 50 miles to work. I speak with some knowledge of the situation in my riding, which I am sure is the case in many other rural areas of the country. People living all over the riding have to drive considerable distances to get to work. They are the people who are being hardest hit.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge pointed out that in the minister's view this was a good tax in that it provided revenue but, like certain things that are good, it hurts. This is even worse than a dose of castor oil. I remember, when I was a kid, that was the most terrible thing that ever happened, but at least it was supposed to get some good results. I do not think this ten-cent tax is getting any good results other than what the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge said. It certainly did get some good results in Manitoba, and I would not be surprised if it got some good results in Ontario in the fall.
29S76-64J/z

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to interrupt the proceedings and inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)- External Affairs-Suggested United States support for Commonwealth plan to close gap between rich and poor nations; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social Security-Date of implementation of guaranteed annual income program; the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston)-Administration of Justice-Crash of Panarctic aircraft-Government position on resumption of inquest or federal inquiry.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 7416).
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, after the excellent contribution by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) it is rather difficult to follow in his footsteps. I must congratulate him for his excellent choice of language in describing this most discriminatory piece of legislation, probably the most discriminatory in respect of which I have taken part in a debate since coming to this House.
There is a rather strange thing about this budget. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has done a pretty good job of handling a rather difficult portfolio by always producing a budget that, while it naturally contained things distasteful to the taxpayers of the nation, carried with it some things that were realistic and helpful, thus making it rather difficult for members of the opposition party to stand and unequivocally criticize the package presented.
In this case there is nothing in the budget to lead anyone to believe it will be of benefit to anyone in the nation. It certainly will produce some rank discrimination against groups of individuals who are by and large carrying the greatest tax burden on their shoulders at this time. I refer specifically to the working people of this nation, those who go to the factories day in and day out to produce the goods that we sell not only here but overseas with the hope of producing a balance of payments which will keep us living in the style to which we have become accustomed. With this rag-bag of tax increases the minis-

ter has put all the tax load on the same working people who have no way, within our tax laws, to retrieve any benefit whatever. They have no expense accounts they can use to overcome the extra load they are now being asked to carry.
While I accept the two-price system for oil which makes it possible for Canadians to drive cars and heat their homes at a lesser rate than the international price of oil, I do not want to ask any working man in any part of this country to carry the load for me individually, as this budget asks at this moment in time. I cannot understand why an individual who works in, shall we say, an automobile plant at Oshawa or Oakville who has to drive 20 or 30 miles to work should have to pay an extra ten cents a gallon, which he cannot recover, in order that we may have two-price system for oil.
There must be a more realistic method to raise the funds required in which every taxpayer in this nation would bear the burden equally and in which certain individuals in this nation who can least afford this burden would not be singled out. I can think of 101 ways in which the same job could have been done better. I find it passing strange that this kind of budget should be produced. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance had the unrequested assistance of some of his colleagues, who fumble and bumble every time they tackle anything, when he produced this package in respect of which they now disassociate themselves every time they are questioned about it, by saying that the Minister of Finance is responsible for the budget and therefore he is the one who should handle questions concerning it.
We believe this matter could have been handled for the benefit of the Canadian people in a much more sensible and able manner than by this very discriminatory tax. Let us look at some of the things the government could have done as an alternative to this ten cents a gallon tax. First we have the grandiose plan of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) which is now before the House. Surely, if the government wants to conserve oil, one way would be to produce a transportation system in this country which people could use and which would be enticing, instead of allowing the railways to perpetuate second-rate transportation systems while charging first-rate prices. Certainly, if we had better passenger train operations across this nation and better urban transit systems available in the urban centres, we could get the people involved in other modes of transportation, which would eliminate the overuse of gasoline in which every Canadian is now involved because he does not have alternative transportation.
Canadians, especially the working people, are forced to get into their automobiles to drive to work-if they are able to find a job. Coupled with that is the fact that every workingman in this nation finds that because of the new costs he will face in order to get to his place of employment he will have to ask his employer for additional money. The employer, because he will be faced with additional costs, will have to charge more for his products.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: So the vicious circle goes.
July 14, 1975


Robert Carman Coates: That is right; around and around we go. Every time we pick up the paper we notice that inflation has risen. It was up 1.5 per cent last month. We might wonder what it will be next month when we are not only forced to contend with normal inflation but will have the additional ten cents a gallon on gasoline and can look forward to still more taxes on gasoline and home heating fuel this winter. We may be faced with a cost of living equal to that in the United Kingdom where at the present time a Labour government has had to tear up its past taxes and impose something my party during the last election campaign proposed should be imposed, which is the only way to face the problem we now have which has been brought about by this government.


An hon. Member:: You really sold the country.


Robert Carman Coates: We did not sell the country, but I tell you right now that if you went to the country you would not sell it either. As a matter of fact, if you went to the country with this budget you would come back with a corporal's guard, and you would be lucky if you had that.
What is so sad and unrealistic in so far as this government is concerned is that it has produced more of what we are trying to overcome, which is inflation and unemployment. What really concerns me is that while some of the bright people over there hope they can get on the backs of the United States as it is pulling out of its recession, and therefore pull out of the recession in this country-which is not evident at the moment even if one reads the kind of nice things that are written by some of the starry-eyed economists in this nation-with this kind of budget we are guaranteeing that we will be in this recession for a longer period than would have been the case if this government had done nothing, which has been the case since July 8, 1974. What was needed was anything but this budget. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance could not have taken another of his trips around the world, instead of dropping in here and presenting this budget which will cause more inflation and more unemployment than we have at the present time.
I listened to the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) today in this House talk about the kind of unemployment experienced in his constituency, where almost one-quarter of the work force of the Sydney steel plant is now laid off, where Campbell Motor Industries have announced the closure of their plant, and where not too many months ago 1,000 employees were out of work when an instrument plant closed down. I can understand the position of that member when he says we are in the midst of a Liberal depression.
No matter what one might call it, that is the situation at the present time in my constituency. It really is not necessary for me to listen to that hon. member to understand what is happening in my constituency. In my constituency, a plant which has had good labour relations with its employees for 125 years, and had never had a strike, now is faced with a strike because the employees cannot make up their minds about what would be a reasonable contract because of the spiralling inflation with which they are saddled through the inaction of this government. The company also cannot make up its mind about what it can afford to pay, because of the same fear. So now a strike is
Excise Tax Act
in existence at a company which for 125 years never had one, and there is every indication it will be a long strike because the company is offering in the order of 30 per cent over a two-year contract while the employees are seeking 70 per cent. That is an indication of how seriously they view inflation.
This is also an indication of the effect inflation has on long-term contracts and the erosion of the dollar. There is a relatively new and very successful company in my riding called Areovox which has had to lay off all its employees for one month. The company was completely shut down. There is another company, one of the most reliable companies in this nation, Northern Electric, which in my constituency has had to cut back on work and reduce the number of employees as much as possible. I do not have to tell you what has happened to those two companies. There were substantial lay-offs in both of them, due to the Minister of Finance.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wonder if he knows all this.


Robert Carman Coates: There is another one in Springhill, a community that has had enough tough luck without being saddled with these kinds of financial policies produced by this government. I am referring to Buckingham Mills. Fortunately, we have a very aggressive Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) who is doing his level best to put another company into operation in that plant, and I hope he succeeds. But in the town of Springhill right now we are back to having very few industries. The only thing we have is a penal institution that was put there by the previous administration. It was a godsend so far as the economic viability of the town was concerned, but at the same time, because of the present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), we are never sure whether we will have more inmates in the institution or outside, roaming around.
It is pretty tough living in the maritimes at any time, and especially tough when you have a government which does everything it possibly can to see that there are more people on the unemployment and welfare rolls than there are in the factories in the area, working and contributing to the benefit of this nation. At the same time, this government, if it wanted to, could put in place policies that would be of material benefit not just to the area but to the nation. A former minister of finance, Walter Gordon, produced a great study of our area and suggested that people should be put into cars-I am not sure whether he suggested they should be put into boxcars-bought one-way tickets, and sent out. The sad part is that right now, if people go to find work and have to get one-way tickets, I am not sure they will know where to go because the situation in this nation is pretty tough no matter where you look, and it is not getting any better. There is certainly nothing in this ten cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline to improve the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I do not know what we can do. We are saddled with this government for another three years and we cannot do very much about it. They act like potentates.

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
I think what we should do now is to have a general election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


An hon. Member:: What about your leader?


Robert Carman Coates: Don't you worry about our leader; the one we have right now is much better than yours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: We can beat you six days in the week and twice on Sunday. I am very happy to hang on with what we have in the way of a leader. As a matter of fact, he is such a material improvement on everyone else we have in the House of Commons now that I just wish this government would be so kind as to test public opinion again, and then we would see a government with policies and programs that would produce a forward-looking economy in which everyone would have confidence, a nation in which everyone would be willing to work and where jobs would be available for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Let us look at some of the policies that could be produced and that would be of material benefit in providing employment for the people. Consider, for example, the Fundy tidal power. This is the kind of project in which the government could be involved and which would be of benefit to the nation as a whole. It could produce tremendous amounts of energy, which we so badly need, and it would give us built-in protection against the commitments we have for oil and gas. There would be no need for the ten cents a gallon excise tax on gas which is imposed by the government in the hope that it will convince someone to conserve energy by paying more for it.
We must have energy, there is no other alternative, but we have a national asset in the Fundy tidal power that could be of value to everyone in this nation. What does the government say to it? We have carried out two studies, so we will spend $3 million more to carry out another study which will take two or three more years, and by that time the cost of construction will have gone up by another 25 per cent. Then the government will come back and say they cannot carry out this project because the construction costs are excessive and because of the inroads of inflation.
That is just one project that could be put into effect. There are dozens of other projects of that kind that could be of benefit to the nation, that could provide employment today and tomorrow and that would guarantee a future for the people living in our area who are looking for jobs. Jobs in our area are disappearing because of policies such as this excise tax on gasoline which has been put into effect now, a policy which is destroying and eroding the jobs which people in our area have at present.


Robert Muir: This government only thinks about central Canada. That is all they have on their minds.


Robert Carman Coates: This government did not even think much about central Canada when it brought down this budget, because the guy they are hitting hardest is the guy who lives in suburbia and who is trying to get to his job which is 15 or 20 miles away, a distance which he has to travel by car because this government will not put in any kind of rapid transit system to get him to work. Until the government comes forward with some kind of policy to provide a real alternative to the use of motor cars, we will be faced with the fact that the Canadian people will burn more gasoline than is required or necessary because we do not have the kind of systems that are available in other parts of the world.
That is only one example of why we in the opposition believe the proposition put forward by the minister should have a six months' hoist. As a matter of fact, it should be hoisted and thrown over the moon-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: -because that is the only place where it might be of some value.


An hon. Member:: Or thrown into the Prime Minister's swimming pool.


Robert Carman Coates: Swimming pools are wonderful things. I understand the one the Prime Minister has his heated, so he will use a little extra energy. These luxuries have been provided by unknown beneficiaries whom the people of Canada would like to know, but the Prime Minister refuses to give this information. He will have an Olympicsized pool in his back yard, but there are people who do not have enough money to put enough food in their pantries to keep them going.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that we are discussing excise tax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am talking about the inroads of inflation upon the economy of this nation, and that is what the minister's ten cent tax on gasoline is supposed to be all about. We are suggesting that there are other ways of conserving energy rather than putting all the problems on the backs of the workingmen and the poor people of this nation.
There is much scope with this kind of tax. There are a thousand and one ways the minister could have approached it, rather than levying this kind of tax and saying that he will grant rebates to many people who will be at the mercy of the bureaucrats again. Rather than any diminution in the size of the public service, there surely will be more red tape and more people getting jobs to bother Canadians, forcing them to fill out more forms to claim the money the government should not have had in the first place. While the government has the money, it will be making money, but there will be no interest paid on the rebate, that is for sure. The taxpayers will be lucky to get it back. Lord only knows how long they will have to wait, but if they do enough praying the minister may tell
July 14, 1975

them that they will get it soon. Everything is soon, but sometimes soon is a long, long time coming, if one listens to some of the replies from this government with regard to the various things it is going to do. However, we are still waiting.
It is a very serious dilemma which faces the country, and there is nothing in this legislation which will do anything but aggravate the problem we face. It will increase unemployment and inflation. It will probably stoke the fires of both. It will convince a great many people who were anticipating going into business or getting out of business that they should make either decision immediately because of government policy. There will be more expenses loaded on to their backs, and that will convince them that they should not try to keep their companies going or that they should not try to set up new companies to produce the jobs we require, because they will just have to face one more taxation burden. There is nothing but rank discrimination against a very small group of people, really, associated with this bill. If everyone whom the minister says will receive a rebate receives a rebate, then we will end up with just the poor, the helpless and the working person left to pay the bill.
While we in eastern Canada are anxious to have some system worked out whereby we can have our oil, gas and heating fuel at the same price, available in all parts of the country, even though we are dependent upon offshore oil which is more expensive and even though we appreciate that there is a two-price system and that we are paying less, I cannot accept the fact that the small segment of people in this nation who will end up having to pay this tax should be the only ones asked to carry the extra burden so that we have a two-price system. There must be a better way, where all Canadians Can join together and contribute so that this burden is handled in a more equitable and just fashion, than is the case with this legislation.
I will support the amendment of my leader that the bill be given a six-month hoist, and I will certainly vote against the bill if we ever reach the day when it is allowed to come to a vote.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I am beginning to doubt it would be possible to make the minister and the government give way in their attitude towards Canadian workers. That is why I will be as brief as possible in my remarks.
I think Bill C-66 now being considered is the residue of the budget speech of June 23 which in turn is a residue of the 1974 general election. Had the voters re-elected a minority government the contents of the budget speech would have been quite different. Or still if a general election were to take place in the fall of 1975 or early in 1976 we would not have seen the tripping just inflicted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on the average worker in Canada.
The Canadian government is seeking by all possible means to increase its revenues, and it takes on the average citizen with Bill C-66. From the start of this debate there was a lot of talk about the 10 cent tax imposed on every gallon of gas consumed especially by the worker who must go to work to earn his living. He finds that it costs more
Excise Tax Act
and more to earn enough to support himself and his family to the point where it is sometimes preferable to live on social welfare. And one often meets, Madam Speaker, Canadian workers who ask themselves: Should we continue to work to produce consumer goods when we cannot even expect recognition for our service to the community?
And people living on social welfare benefits, for example, do not at all have to face the kind of expenses by which the Canadian worker is beset. Indeed, the worker must pay increasingly higher federal and provincial taxes on his income. He will soon have to pay increased contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He must also pay ever higher contributions to the Quebec or Canada Pension Plans. The amounts paid for medicare are also higher, and it is the same thing for his mandatory inclusion in a labour union. We witnessed just that this past weekend.
The Canadian worker is wondering if he is not a fool, or being fooled in the responsibility entrusted to him to produce the goods and services necessary to the well-being of his fellow citizens. Why is the worker always the one to suffer? What is the objective of the government?
Having heard the budget speech on June 23 last, the Quebec Minister of Transport stated that the government had done the right thing when it levied an excise tax on gas, because we would need fewer highways. The federal government is well supported by the Quebec Liberal government. An average increase of $100 for automobile insurance has just been allowed in Quebec and the price of automobile licences will also go up by 50 per cent in 1976. You see, Madam Speaker, that the Quebec citizen finds it ever more difficult to meet his obligations.
I remember that the federal government once levied a direct tax of 13 cents per gallon of gas. When it gave up that tax, the Quebec government under the National Union immediately started to collect it for its own purposes. As the Minister of Finance made sure that Quebec will also give up that 10 cents tax per gallon of gas? I do not think so.
We now pay in Quebec a direct federal and provincial tax of at least 32 cents on each gallon of gas. In the northwestern area of Quebec where I live, some service stations are selling red gas 93 cents a gallon and we will soon pay almost $1. It is the most costly and the red colour of the gas is perhaps what is most painful for the worker.
Mr. Speaker, that is reason enough to prevent any member from voting for the bill, but there are others: the air travel tax increase, for instance. Indeed, a provision of Bill C-66 raises the air travel tax by 3 per cent. We know that airlines, be it Air Canada, CP Air or others, are seeking higher fares and the tax, which will jump from 5 to 8 per cent, will add to the cost of tickets.
But we know that the great majority of air travellers are representatives of companies or governments whose travelling expenses are tax deductible. That is why fares can go up indefinitely before companies complain too much. It is however unjust towards those who pay their own tickets and get no tax deduction or compensation from employers or companies. As we know, people use the plane or try to use it because it is a more convenient mode of transportation to visit friends, to attend to personal busi-

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
ness or even, at times, unfortunately, to get to the hospital. Again today at noon, a sick person took the plane that flew us from Val-d'Or to Ottawa in order to get to a better equipped hospital where the required care can be given. Now, that person had to pay his own way.
All those increases will again play havoc with the budget of Canadian workers. We see, once again, in this Bill C-66, that the Canadian government ignores the needs of those who reelected it, with a majority, in 1974. More and more, and always, the low wage-earner is being harassed. For those reasons, and because my electors gave me the mandate to protect them, to try to obtain from the Canadian government the best possible laws, I feel that this bill is definitely not a good one for the Canadian worker, and that it is my duty to vote against it.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-66, the purpose of which is to implement certain budgetary proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), specifically those relating to excise tax amendments. I support unequivocably my leader's amendment, which seeks to hoist this bill for six months. I shall say more about this later.
I want to speak particularly about the proposed ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline. When introducing this proposal the minister said he had two motives in mind. First, he wanted to finance the subsidy with which to maintain uniform oil prices across Canada. Second, he wanted to encourage conservation of petroleum products. We cannot quarrel with his first motive. The minister must find extra money to subsidize oil costs. We have serious reservations about the second motive, ostensibly that of encouraging conservation of gasoline.
The proposal for taxing gasoline at ten cents a gallon will bring the government about $525 million. It is estimated that the oil subsidy program will cost about $400 million; so we have here an over-kill of $100 million. The government is raising too much money. It is not necessary.
We doubt if the conservation aspect of the program will work. The minister hopes to cut down on motoring for pleasure. The people who motor purely for pleasure are either wealthy or are in the larger than average income bracket and they, of course, will buy gasoline no matter what it costs. The pressure of any conservation aspect on these people will be practically nil. The other group which drives a great deal is the computer group. Some people must drive their cars to work, and they will buy gasoline regardless of cost. The effect of the conservation measure on these people will be nil. In the opinion of members on my side, the conservation aspect of this legislation is a snare and a delusion. I make no apologies for repeating what has been said. This iniquitous tax will do much harm.
We must consider the unfairness and discriminatory nature of this tax. Surely it is patently wrong to force the motoring public to pick up the cost of the oil subsidy program. Motoring for most is not a luxury but a necessity. Surely it would be fairer to have the subsidy program

financed from the consolidated revenue fund, or from general taxation.
If the government wants to save, wants to cut down, it should curtail its wasteful expenditures and some of the programs it has foisted on the public.


Mr. Stevens:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: The government could cut out several programs. Some Local Initiatives Programs are questionable; Opportunities for Youth is certainly questionable. Above all, the government could save with respect to Information Canada, which is nothing but the propaganda machine of the Liberal government. It could be cut out, with great savings.
Second, it is patently wrong to force the working commuter to pay for the subsidy. As far as I am concerned, it has been put on the backs of the working poor of this country and can only lead to increased wage demands. These, certainly, will be an important factor in increasing the pressure of inflation. It is estimated that the proposal will increase inflationary pressures by about 2 per cent. For most people, public transport is non-existent. It does not exist for about 80 per cent of the working people of this country. The minister talked about car pools. Surely he knows that people already use car pools. Where they can, the working people of this country use car pools.
I now want to quote parts of two letters and repeat part of a telephone conservation, to underline the harmful effects of the proposed ten cents a gallon gasoline tax.
The first letter, written by Annie Mae Taylor of Waterford, Ontario, says in part:
On TV Mr. Turner said the price of gas was going up, to cut down on pleasure driving. For his information, 80 per cent of the working public in every town, village or hamlet drive to work some distance. We are not excused gas tax-
We have pride and work for our living. We do not ask welfare. We are not pleasure driving.
I quote from a letter to the editor from J. M. Bryan in the June 28 edition of the Globe and Mail:
Mr. Turner forgets that a whole generation of Canadians purchasing homes during the past five years or so have been faced with unprecedented land, house and mortgage costs. Many thus have been forced to locate in satellite or fringe communities, many of them not served by any kind of public transit.
My neighbors and I populate a 300-family development, southwest of Ottawa, which is a typical example. The nearest public transit is about 15 miles away. We have no choice but to commute by private car, an average 26 miles each way.
Based on 350 miles per week of this kind of driving, the Turner gas tax will cost me $3 a week, $12 a month and about $150 a year.
Can I or anyone else in similar circumstances be blamed for trying to offset this increased cost of earning a living in my next work contract?
I had a long conversation with Mr. Jim Lindsay of Port Rowan, Ontario. He pointed out exactly the same thing. He has a 50 mile round trip to work. I will not go into the figures again. They have been cited by several other speakers. In all cases one must realize the inflationary effect of the tax now being imposed.
I wish to speak for a moment or two on the rebate aspect.
July 14, 1975


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to interrupt the hon. member for Norfolk-Hal-dimand (Mr. Knowles) to deliver, as I indicated earlier in the day I would, my conclusions in respect to the very interesting point of order raised originally by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), to which extensive contributions have been made in support thereof by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Arguments were made on the contrary aspect, initially by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and then by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid).
Originally, three issues were raised on the point of order. The first, relating to the original exemption in the resolution to municipalities, is no longer being pursued. The point is no longer urged and need not be considered at this time. The second is the introduction into the legislation of a two-year limitation on applications for rebate. That was not in the resolution. The third is the substitution of the power of the minister in the resolution to describe, by regulation, further exempt persons in the current clause 5 of the bill, what would be Section 47(1) (f) of the act, which would describe that class of persons being those contained in Part I of the Income Tax Act.
The governing principles in respect to the arguments before us are not seriously in dispute. If I may be permitted, I might refer to the fact that the same kind of argument was made during the consideration of the last budget legislation. On December 18, 1974, a point that was in many ways similar to the one before us was raised. At that time, if I can paraphrase, I set out four or five basic principles that ought to be considered in a situation of this sort. I quote from that ruling:
First, that the ways and means motions which follow the budget presentation are, by virtue of time honoured practice and tradition, the very expression of the financial initiative of the Crown and therefore a most important aspect of our procedure.
Second, the relationship between that resolution and the bills which follow it are set out in Standing Order 60(11), which reads as follows:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
As has been said many times, the operative words are "based on". In the search for the meaning of the words "based on", it is obvious that if the rule intended to say "identical with" rather than "based on", it would say so. It does not. Therefore I must say at the outset that in my consideration of the point on the two-year limitation, I have little difficulty. Each case has to be examined on its individual merits. However, with respect to the two year limitation the resolution says, and I quote from the bottom of page 9 of the ways and means motion:
-the Minister may, upon application by the purchaser, in such form and in such manner as the Minister prescribes,-
Those words seem to give the minister the authority to prescribe conditions under which the rebate, or an application for rebate would be made. The bill provides that the application, when made, must be made within a two-year period. I do not have difficulty in accepting the fact that that is a provision in the bill that is based on the resolution.
Excise Tax Act
The other point gives me considerably more difficulty. It is proposed in paragraph 3 on page 9 of the resolution that the act be amended in section 47 by the following terms- for the purpose of this particular point the operative words are in subparagraph (g) which give to the minister the authority to describe the exempt class, and I quote:
-by a person of such other class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe,
On the other hand, subparagraph (f) of the proposed amendment to Section 47(1) uses the words, and I quote:
-a person within a class of persons exempt from tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act,
It is clear on all of the arguments that the change does not go beyond the power given in the resolution to the minister in bringing in the bill. In fact it is generally agreed it goes very much the other way. However, that fact alone does not bring the matter to a close.
I wish to refer to the closing paragraphs of the ruling I made on the earlier occasion to which I have referred. I said I must therefore find the point of order unacceptable. I quote:
-however, that the terms of the ways and means motion are a carefully prepared expression of the financial initiative of the Crown, and frequent departure from them can only invite deterioration of that most important power.
Furthermore, I have considerable sympathy for the argument that once the ways and means motions have been adopted by the House, changes of a nature any more substantial than the one before us now ought to be made by the House.
Obviously the most desirable practice is for the bill to adhere strictly to the provisions of the motion, and departures, if any, ought to be subject to the strictest interpretation. With that in mind, I examined the two clauses that are put forward.
Here we have something quite different from what we had in the case previously ruled upon. We have more than simply a change of description of a class of vehicles which would be subject to an exemption under the tax. We have a change in approach from that which could be done by regulation to that being done by legislation, from a class which, when addressing itself to the resolution, would be specifically described in a regulation, to a class which is taken from a description given in an entirely different statute. It might be that when a member of the House addressed himself to the resolution he did not anticipate problems he might now have in proposing, for example, amendments to a description of classes because that, on reflection, could be something very difficult for the hon. members to do at this stage.
I repeat that it is not for the Chair to decide which of the courses is more desirable, which gives members more power and more control over the minister's actions. That is not the question. The only question for me to decide at this time is whether this particular bill is "based on" this particular resolution. In my view the variations that I have described, being fundamentally different in approach, go beyond that relationship.
However, it has always been my view that procedure should serve the House and not enslave it. For example, we have here a situation in which there is an amendment that the bill be not now read the second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence. I suppose in

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
strict interpretation of procedure it might be possible for me to say that the mover and supporters of the motion would be stopped from arresting or attempting to arrest the progress of the bill. I believe that would be an extremely stringent view.
[DOT] <1750)
I note also the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), a most experienced advocate of procedure in the House, that the progress of this or other legislation is never greatly retarded by this type of procedural difficulty. Whether or not the hon. member for Peace River is totally accurate in that assessment, I certainly accept the spirit of it. More than two days have been spent in debate on this measure, after six days debate on the resolution; almost three hours have been spent on procedural arguments, some of which followed requests which were put forward and granted for adjournment of the procedural argument. I have reserved judgment, and there is now the amendment on the floor. Finally, we are far from the point in our year, from the situation in earlier mid-session, in which the House could easily adjust itself to severe procedural dislocation.
Thus, in the interests of preserving the important procedural safeguards surrounding the relationship between the ways and means resolution and this bill or, generally speaking, a bill based on that resolution, it is my view that this bill and the resolution must be brought into closer conformity with one another. However, it is also my view that this ought to be accomplished without prejudice to the progress of the bill. I therefore leave it to the minister and to his colleagues in the House, during the remainder of this day, and with the necessary consent, to prepare amendments or alterations to either the bill or the resolution so as to accomplish the necessary objective. If the parties find themselves unable to agree and, in turn, the House finds itself unable to agree or to accept whatever the alterations or amendments may be, then I would propose to take the necessary action from the Chair tomorrow at 3 p.m.
In the meantime it is my view that debate on the measure ought to continue. The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles).


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since my immortal remarks are going to be split into three parts if I go on now until six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.56 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, may I raise a point of order. At five minutes to six this evening when Mr. Speaker had finished his ruling regarding the point of order I had raised last week, and which I continued this afternoon, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) adjourned the debate. However, I am puzzled, and I think that some of my colleagues are also puzzled, by some of the directions of Mr. Speaker at the end of his ruling, and it is on that point that I should like to ask for some clarification.
Having ruled that the bill was, in effect, an imperfect bill, Mr. Speaker directed that the minister had some options regarding either the ways and means motion or the bill, and that he should consult with the opposition as to what should be done. On failing to agree, Mr. Speaker would then have some observations to make, and possibly some directions to give at 3.00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. He then directed that the debate continue, but here I find myself in a dilemma. Because the bill, being an imperfect bill, has to be corrected, the government must have time to determine its option regarding how to proceed so as to correct the defect, and it must at least be discussed with those on this side of the House so we can determine whether it does correct, in our estimation, the defect in the bill relative to the original motion.
I find it difficult to see how we can continue the debate. It must be remembered that the debate has continued to this point while Mr. Speaker reserved his judgment on my point of order. That debate is without prejudice to the amendment that my leader tabled at the conclusion of his speech, and any other happenings up to Mr. Speaker's ruling. But Mr. Speaker having found that the bill is defective, I repeat that I find it a little difficult to see how we can continue the debate tonight.
It is my suggestion that we move from this item to another item, and that we have a quick consultation with the government House leader regarding another item of business. Bill C-66 should stand deferred until we see what is going to happen tomorrow. The minister is not in the chamber. We cannot tell what option is being exercised. I suggest very strongly that this is what should happen and that we should move to another item of business.


Mr. Cullen:: Madam Speaker, we had the direction from Mr. Speaker that the debate was to continue pending presentation of the options, and these are now being worked on. I think Your Honour was correct to recognize the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), and that the debate should continue until the options are presented.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On what bill?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, may I speak to the same point of order. I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said, and I think he is quite correct. At the point in time, when Mr. Speaker made his statement just prior to the six o'clock adjournment, I think he was dealing with a suggestion as to how we might concur. But at that time he had not had the benefit of the very succinct argument that
July 14, 1975

has now been made on a very real point by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
If I may say so with respect, I suggest there is now a valid point of order before the House which must be ruled upon. The situation we now have is that the bill is defective, and the question is: how can we debate a defective bill? This is not to say that we are not without remedy in this situation. It is not to say that the time of the House this evening should be wasted. I believe the government House leader has sufficient ingenuity-at least I suspect he has-to bring forward another bill on the order paper with which we might deal. Perhaps there is another budget bill that we might deal with in order not to waste the time of the House, particularly the time of the government.
As I say, I think the hon. member for Edmonton West has made a very valid point, but a point that ought only to be an inconvenience to the government, nothing else. We are not suggesting that the House rise, or anything of that nature. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has indicated that he has a shopping list of a kind that he wants to get through. I suggest that, pending discussions which are going to take place between the government House leader and other House leaders, we move on to another bill. I think that is the proper way to handle this situation. Surely we should not allow a travesty of the rules to occur for the sake of convenience, especially if the convenience can be served by bringing forward another piece of legislation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, the House will recall that when the Speaker reserved his ruling on this point he did suggest that the debate might continue. As I understood his argument today, it was to the effect that on most of the points that had been raised he did not think there was any disagreement between the ways and means motion and the bill; it was just on one point. On that one point he suggested there should be some discussion among the House leaders regarding how to rectify the position. As I understood his argument, it was a very nice point whether in fact the bill was or was not based on the ways and means resolution, but in the interest of preserving the principle of the ways and means motion he came down in favour of those who had raised the doubt.
However, as I understood him, his argument was to the effect that he thought the matter could easily be rectified. My recollection of his suggestion to the House is that we should continue the debate until the rectification had been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, all of us are referring to what Mr. Speaker said when he made his ruling just before six o'clock. Of course, under the circumstances we are all relying on our memories. I am doing the same thing, but it seems to me that at the point when Mr. Speaker said the debate should go on, it was after he had suggested there might be a consideration of a proposition or some proposal made this day. There was even a reference to consultation between the government and the opposition House leaders as to what course might be followed. There was some friendly chit-chat at six o'clock, naturally, in that kind of situation, but there
Excise Tax Act
was no serious consultation. No proposal has been made to us by the government as to which option the government is going to take.
If we carry on with the debate tonight, then I submit we do not know what we are debating. Are we debating the bill in its present form in the belief that the resolution is to be corrected, or are we going to have a new bill brought in? If that is the case, then this debate is on something that is not before us.
I am quite prepared to agree that there was a point at which Mr. Speaker said something about the debate carrying on, but my memory tells me he said that after he had made reference to there being consultation this day as to what we might do. It was at the very end of his ruling that he said if no agreement were reached tonight he would give a direction at three o'clock tomorrow. Not only has there been no agreement, there has been no attempt to arrive at an agreement. I do not know why the government has done this. It had to go out and give the matter consideration, and that is understandable, but in the circumstances I do not think we should continue to debate something that may not be properly before us. I suggest that the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that this debate be adjourned and we move to the consideration of some other order of business, is a good one.


Mr. MacGuigan:: Madam Speaker, the point raised by hon. gentlemen opposite would be a very valid point for argument had the Speaker not already ruled on this particular issue. Not only was the Speaker quite clear in saying that the debate should continue, but there are two factors which make it even more clear that this is what was in his mind. First of all there is the fact that he suggested the debate should continue and that it would only be at three o'clock tomorrow that he would attempt to resolve any problems. Then at the very conclusion of his ruling he called on the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldi-mand (Mr. Knowles) to continue the debate. I do not think there could be any more clear an indication of what Mr. Speaker intended.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I can take a more objective approach to this as I was not here and did not hear what took place. I did not hear the ruling, but I have since acquainted myself with it. I was having half hourly reports delivered to me at the place I was carrying on business in order to keep me posted, so I can be much more objective.
I have spoken with my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In addition, I have listened to the government House leader who has suggested that we should continue. I think there are other reasons behind the obvious suggestion on his part that we should continue.
As I understand the situation Mr. Speaker's view was, and he in fact held, that there was a defect. He made the very useful suggestion, which is often made from the chair, and one which I think must often commend itself to members of the House, that we should get together in an attempt to work this out.

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
This can be done in several ways. The government might admit its error and change the bill, or seek permission to change it. If the government stays with the bill and is determined it is going to have the whole bill and nothing but the whole bill, then it might have to consider withdrawing the bill and bringing in a new ways and means motion on which a bill can be based.
I think what was in Mr. Speaker's mind, if I can believe what I am told, is that with this situation before him he thought members might work out some form of arrangement. I am told by my colleagues on returning here that there was no such approach, discussion or suggestion. If Mr. Speaker did hold that the bill was defective, and it appears there has been no consultation and no arrangement under which the bill could proceed, then we would be in a very anomalous and foolish position if we proceeded to debate a bill which was not in order because it did not conform with the ways and means motion.
If there were any likelihood of there being consultation, approaches or propositions which might lead to the bill being changed to conform with the ways and means motion, if that is legally possible, then there might be some reason for Mr. Speaker's suggestion. At the moment we are waiting, but there has been no approach, discussion or consultation. The members of my party feel very strongly that this is a bad, vicious, punitive, and harsh measure. It might well be that if this bill is withdrawn, the new bill will not only be in conformity with the ways and means motion but will be a better and more reasonable bill as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Hon. members who were here at the time of Mr. Speaker's ruling will remember that in rendering his decision he suggested the debate should continue. Mr. Speaker then called upon the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) to continue the debate, and that hon. member called it six o'clock. There was no opposition or suggestion at that time that the debate should not continue. Therefore, I feel the debate should go ahead.


William David Knowles: Madam Speaker, it appears that the bill before us is faulty in two aspects now, from a procedural point of view end also because of the substance, upon which I have already commented. As the debate finished at quarter to six, in order for Mr. Speaker to make his ruling, I was at the point in my remarks of drawing the attention of the House to the unfair and discriminatory aspects of this excise tax of 10 cents per gallon on gasoline.
It is wrong that the working person who has to commute daily to work, with no alternative, should bear the burden of this tax. I also want to draw another aspect to the attention of the House which I think is very harmful and very difficult to certain segments of our economy. However, in view of the procedural difficulties and the division in the House on this matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the debate be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on the motion of Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand), seconded by Mr. Halliday, that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand)) negatived.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker):
That this House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might refer the hon. member to Standing Order 25 which would appear to me to place a procedural roadblock in the way of moving a motion to adjourn the House after a motion to adjourn the debate in the absence of some intervening procedure taking place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you rule on the basis of Standing Order 25, may I draw your attention to citation 99(2) in Beauchesne's 4th Edition?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Excise Tax Act
the last few years. The precedent to which the hon. member has referred indicates the usual practice of alternating, while a question is under debate, motions to adjourn the debate and motions to adjourn the House.
Be that as it may, it appears to me to be only sensible practice and procedure, within the language of Standing Order 25, that two procedural motions ought not to be taken without the House addressing itself to some substantive matter or some intervening proceeding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the floor is taken by someone to address himself either to the substance of the question before the House or to some other intervening proceedings, I do not propose to entertain in succession two strictly procedural motions, a motion to adjourn the debate and then a motion to adjourn the House. These are procedural motions which in no way attempt to direct themselves to the substance; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) in no way attempted to direct himself to the substance. If there had been a speech on the merits there might have been some grounds for saying there had been a direction of attention to the merits of the question, followed ultimately by a procedural motion. However, there has simply been a vote on a procedural motion followed immediately by an hon. member moving, without commenting on the substance, another procedural motion, and in my view the rules only make sense if they preclude that kind of practice and require some kind of intervening proceeding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather interesting that these paragons of efficiency have been in power since 1963.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It reads as follows:
The term "intermediate proceeding" used in Standing Order 25 means a proceeding that can properly be entered on the Journals. The true test is that if any parliamentary proceeding takes place the second motion is regular and the Clerk ought to enter the proceeding in order to show that the motion in question is regular.
I emphasize the following sentence:
It is usual to alternate motions for adjournment of House and debate when a question is under consideration.
I submit that this is in accordance with the practice which has been followed on previous occasions. It is not possible to move the same motion again without some intermediate proceeding intervening, but this is a different motion. The previous motion was that the debate be now adjourned. This is a motion that the House do now adjourn, and I submit that the last sentence in citation 99(2) covers the point that it is usual to alternate such motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am taking my reading of Standing Order 25, which is in its place pursuant to a revision of standing orders which has been carried out in


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: They may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the country is not cheering. But this afternoon, on a point of procedure concerning the cornerstone of a very questionable budget, they were found wanting. I do not know where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) gets his legal opinions, but if he gets them from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) then I suggest that he ought to change solicitors immediately. If he is taking his colleague's advice, as apparently he is, regarding the propriety of motions before him-and this question has not yet been settled-then I think his 13 years or so in public life have been more or less wasted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Let us consider the situation. Obviously the Minister of Justice certified this bill, or if he did not he should have. If he did so certify the bill, he has been found wanting. We now have him fresh from his election victory in Saskatchewan, and if there was ever a reason why the Minister of Justice should not be hampered with the policies of the Wheat Board, it is the

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
performance here this afternoon, because in effect he has misdirected and misguided the Minister of Finance in regard to his responsibilities under the rules of this House.
I do not want to blame the Minister of Justice completely.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Walter David Baker: I will sit down, but the hon. member has just talked me into speaking for a little longer. If we are to continue this debate under these circumstances, then I think it is only fair to say that the Minister of Finance has misguided himself. He has given us the best example of a Liberal policy, a policy that is like the automatic parachute that opens upon impact.
Here today we have hon. members opposite taking no cognizance at all of the ruling of Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hand of Mr. Speaker was some divine guidance that was indicating to the Minister of Finance just how unjust, discriminatory, and wrong Bill C-66 is so far as it applies to the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not want to prevent the hon. member from addressing himself to the bill, but I hope he will not get to his feet in the middle of a debate to reflect upon a decision taken by the Chair. The hon. member has enough leeway and latitude to make a good speech without trying to implicate the Chair's participation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if I was involving the Chair in this debate it was only on the side of the good Lord.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want now to get to the substance of this particular debate. Bill C-66 imposes a discriminatory, regressive, harsh, cruel tax on a segment of the Canadian population. As long as the Minister of Finance occupies that office he is going to be known as "Ten cent Turner". He is going to be known as the Minister of Finance who stabbed the Canadian consumer once again in the back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He is going to be known as the Minister of Finance who placed just one more barbed blade, along with all the others, in the back of the Canadian consumer. I do not want the Minister of Finance to think that he is any small backstabber; when the Minister of Finance stabs somebody in the back he does a job of it. This is a $350 million stab in the back.
I want to ask these paragons of virtue so-called, these efficiency experts so-called, what will this tax do other than soak the consumer? It will do nothing, Mr. Speaker. If you believe the government, the one great problem in Canada is supply of petroleum products.


Mr. Poulin:: Speak up, we cannot hear you.


Walter David Baker: I can never hear the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) because he usually speaks out of both sides of his mouth. I want to

ask the Minister of Finance what the budget does. If the major Canadian problem is to ensure a steady, constant supply of petroleum products so that we can move closer to self-sufficiency, is one thin dime from one gallon of gasoline at the pumps going to go back to the producers of Canada? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, not one. Is there one measure in this budget that will ensure the eastern consumers one additional gallon of fuel? Again, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. This is a money grabbing budget introduced by a money grabbing government.
What have hon. gentlemen opposite been saying? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) have said that we are going to embark upon a great program of research and development so we can become masters in our own house. We have heard other ministers talk of the necessity of finding alternate fuels. I ask, where is all this $350 million going to go? Is it going to go toward these worthy objectives that we support? Of course not-it is going into the coffers of the government.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is going to the consumers of eastern Canada. You know that.


Walter David Baker: The government House leader has messed things up enough today, but if he wants to make a speech he can do so.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I may do that.


Walter David Baker: Not one dollar of this money will go back to the producing provinces.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is going to the consumers instead.


Walter David Baker: Let me deal with the interjection of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). He asks us where this money is going to go.


Mitchell William Sharp: I did not ask you, I told you.


Walter David Baker: We know where it is going to go. It is designed to offset the deficit in the petroleum import cost compensation program.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Just contain yourself. I do not think the hon. member ought to generate any more indignation that he can contain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: This is going to be used for that purpose. What is the effect of this? There is being loaded on a very small, unprotected segment of the Canadian population, namely, the person who uses the automobile to get to work, the working person, the whole burden of this national problem. That is not only unfair, that is discriminatory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 14, 1975


Walter David Baker: If the government thinks enough of its offsetting program, if it thinks enough of a single price for Canadians, and if it believes this is a national problem, and I am sure it must or this would not have been in the Minister of Finance's budget, which is a national document, then I do not believe this inflationary, discriminatory and retrogressive tax ought to have been levied to carry out that national purpose. The whole purport of our case is that we support the offsetting program, but we deny-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: We deny the minister the satisfaction of saying it is right to load this burden on a small section of the Canadian population.


An hon. Member:: How would you do it?


Walter David Baker: That is the situation in which we find ourselves with this particular measure.


John Napier Turner: How would you pay for it, Walter-higher taxes?


Walter David Baker: The minister yells "higher taxes". I would like the minister or one of his minions to stand in this House and produce the figures as to how much it will cost.


An hon. Member:: They have been produced.


Walter David Baker: What will it cost? How much will it cost every person?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is flying high tonight, but he ought to read the speech which I made in introducing the bill now before us, because all those questions are developed fully and recorded in the record of Hansard.


Walter David Baker: The minister rises to the bait, but he is not even a good fish; he is a minnow. The fact of the matter is that I read and re-read the minister's speech, and nowhere in it does he tell us how much it is going to cost.


John Napier Turner: It is in the speech.


Gerald William Baldwin: He never even told the Cabinet.


Walter David Baker: When the minister introduced this piece of legislation he said it was a conservation measure. He said that all of a sudden Canadians were going to be forced to change their habits of a lifetime and change the modes of transportation they have enjoyed in this country, all because of this 10-cents tax. He said we were going to be urged and pressed into using public transportation.
If the minister honestly believes this, Mr. Speaker, do you not think he would have been honest enough with the
Excise Tax Act
House in terms of that budget not to back off on the conservation aspect, as he did a few days later during the question period? He should have said to us that he wants us to use public transportation. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) has been making this kind of speech all over the country. There are lots of words, but very little action.


An hon. Member:: Especially during the last election campaign.


Walter David Baker: Yes, especially during the last election campaign when, according to the promises, we were going to have a railroad to the moon. If the minister believes that, why did he not also say in the budget that the government recognizes that transportation in this country is in a mess? Why did he not admit that this tax he is asking Canadians to accept is a tax on the backs of the working people of Canada, that it is a tax on the tourist operator, and a tax on that individual who is so taxed now that he has neither private transportation on the one hand or adequate public transportation on the other? Why did he not honestly say to the Canadian people that we intend to take some initiative in respect of public transportation in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I do not want to get the minister in beyond his depth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I want to talk to him about a proposition he will understand. For the purpose of considering the principles of this particular bill I want the minister to keep in mind the people who have heretofore lived in the cities because they were convenient and reasonably inexpensive places to live in but who, as a result of the policies of this government which have forced up the price of land, interest charges, the cost of servicing, which ought to be the main pre-occupation of this government, have been forced out of the cities.
What do we see in this country today? We have seen an exodus of people from the big cities to the smaller towns and areas around the great cities. We have seen developed in our country, with lack of a valid system of interurban transportation, a greater reliance on the automobile, the motorcycle, and even the bicycle if one can trust himself in the traffic. We have seen a greater reliance on these means of transportation because of the lack of alternate transportation.
The reason I said I wanted to keep the minister within an area he would understand was my intention to refer to the national capital area, in which he is aware of what has happened. He can look around the national capital area and see this situation. All he has to do is look at Orleans, which is in his own constituency; look at Kemptville, which is in my constituency; look at Manotick, which is in my constituency; and look at Almonte, which is in the constituency of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). The minister can even look at the constituency of the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), or of the government whip, and, what he will see is

July 14, 1975
Excise Tax Act
the result of the failure of the government to cope with inflation in economic terms, and its failure to meet the urban problems of the country.
The result of all this is that many people who are not self-employed and are not professionals, and therefore cannot write off the cost of an automobile against a business, or gain the rebates through the minister's taxation system, must drive automobiles to work, and they are burdened by this taxation. If there is anyone on the other side of the House who believes it is just and right that we should put that kind of tax burden on these people who cannot benefit in any way-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) says "louder". I do not think he would hear me if I stood on my chair and shouted.


An hon. Member:: Try it.


Walter David Baker: I gather from the interjection that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre thinks the 10-cents tax is fair and just. If he thinks that, I feel sorry for him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That's what I heard.


Walter David Baker: That is what I heard as well, Mr. Speaker. This is the situation is which we find ourselves. As a result of the government's policies the people who consciously moved out to the country and the small towns around the big cities-


An hon. Member:: They were driven out.


Walter David Baker: These people who were driven out by the policies of this government, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), now find themselves not only at the initial disadvantage, but at a tremendous disadvantage in respect of cost. The burden of this tax is cruel, and this government is cruel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If there is anything that has characterized the development of Canadian society in the mid part of the 20th century it has been the mobility of Canadians. If there is anything that has characterized the position of this government in terms of its responsibility in so far as the provision of reasonable, inexpensive, fast and efficient transportation, it has been the lack of those things within this country. To put upon the Canadian people this tax in those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think is wrong. My party believes it is wrong. I believe there is support from other parts of this House in respect of it being wrong. I think the Canadian people believe it is wrong.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They do believe it is wrong.


Walter David Baker: If the truth were known, they believe it is wrong as well. The interesting thing is that since this bill has been introduced-I think I am correct-aside from the Minister of Finance who is

bound to defend his legislation there has not been one speaker from the government side rise on second reading-not one.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: I ask the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) if he has the courage, as he had to intervene a few minutes ago, to stand up and defend this iniquitous tax.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. The member who has just been speaking must of course realize that this tax will benefit the people east of the Ottawa Valley line, including the people in his riding. It is the people east of the Ottawa Valley line, including those in his riding of Grenville-Carleton, who will benefit very directly from this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: It will benefit the people in his riding, in my riding of Ottawa Centre, and in all the Ottawa Valley ridings east of the Ottawa Valley.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that he is not really raising a point of order but is participating in the debate, which he can do only when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has completed his speech. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton still has the floor.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, because I feel so strongly about this subject I am afraid I must go on. I want to say to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre that he has just attempted to make a molehill out of a molehill. I do not want anyone on this side of the House to attack him, because he is a great friend of mine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I do not want anyone on the other side of the House to attack him either because he is a great friend of mine and, as a matter of fact, is a constituent of mine as well. I have pledged myself to look after my constituents regardless of how misguided they may be.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have talked about a number of things in the course of this debate. We have talked about the importance of this, and the impact of this discriminatory piece of legislation.


An hon. Member:: Smile, you are on candid camera.


Walter David Baker: Does the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) want to make a speech too, tonight?


Gerald William Baldwin: She could not even get started in ten minutes.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we have talked about-
July 14, 1975


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: I regret to interrupt, but the hon. member for Ottawa Centre rises on a question of privilege.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because the hon. member said I was in his constituency. I would like to make it clear that if I had to rely on him to look after my interests I would just give up. I may say that many of my neighbours feel the same way. However, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is serious about looking after the interests of those of us in this community, he should use whatever little influence he has to ask the Premier of Ontario to reduce the speed limit in this vicinity to 55 miles per hour, to save lives and conserve energy.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman raised the subject of the Premier of Ontario, because he is a little ahead of me. I think it is fair to say, although there are many provinces in the country which are well governed, there are very few provinces as well governed and as well lead as Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: My friends to the left have some question about that particular remark.
I am trying to carry on, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should be given an opportunity to complete his speech.


Walter David Baker: I do not mind the interruptions from over there at all. I have always found in this House that when there are interruptions from the other side, somebody over there is beginning to feel the heat. When the government House leader has moved out of his deep sleep to intervene, it is really getting hot.
I want to deal with this matter of the Premier of Ontario. I am glad my friend from Ottawa Centre raised this matter because I think it is extremely important. I feel so strongly about this subject that I must speak with great deliberation. The Premier of Ontario has seen through this government. He has seen through the inequity of this tax. He has seen through its regressive nature, its discrimination, and the burden it places on the working people. He has joined with other Canadians in all parts of Canada to condemn this tax out of hand. However, he went one step further. I shall speak a little louder so that the member can hear me. He said there is something else on the threshold.


John Edward Broadbent: An election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The Leader of the New
Democratic Party said an election. I doubt it. That government is so sound that it does not need an election at this time. If an election is called it will be only to renew a mandate that is well deserved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He saw through this conspiracy. He moved to lessen its effect in the only way that a provincial premier can do within the jurisdiction he has. I can remember hearing the hon. member for York
Excise Tax Act
Centre (Mr. Kaplan) a few days ago, when he made a speech in the House. He decided to run for cover during the course of the budget speech. He did not say anything very constructive about this tax, and the reason he did not is that he is a reasonable man and, as I assume, he saw nothing particularly constructive in the tax that is in the bill before us. But then what did he do? He turned upon the government of the province of Ontario and condemned them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: You know, Mr. Speaker, even Bob Nixon did not do that. I do not want to get on to Bob Nixon, I do not want to worry my head over trifles, because whatever political credibility there was, was left with the premier of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I mean the leader of the Liberal party.


Mr. Blais:: 1 simply do not want to miss the opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton on his prophetic abilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, and if that was being prophetic, then I should be certified.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: And if the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) believed that I was prophetic, then he should be certified.
Before I was so rudely interrupted I was talking about the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario, who wishes he will be premier but never will be. Let me say that if that gentleman had any credibility at all as a Liberal or as a progressive thinker, if his association with the Liberal Party of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Are you going to denounce that association? Then not only was whatever credibility he had undermined, but his position, and all of the things that that poor man has supported all his life, were destroyed on June 23.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Now I want to turn to my friends in the NDP.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you.


Walter David Baker: In terms of this legislation which is before us tonight I want to say that there are many things lacking in the Ontario leader of the NDP, but he was always able to recognize a ringer when he saw it,

July 14, 1975
Business of the House
and he condemned the budget of the Minister of Finance for the iniquitous thing that it is.
I want to talk about something else now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Members on the other side may not be so happy about the subject when they hear what it is, that is, the effect of this bill. I want to welcome the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford). His arm is in a sling, and if he keeps it up, his neck will be in a sling also. If he wants to intervene in this debate, he should go over to his own seat and I will be delighted to hear from him then. I want to hear his defence.


John Napier Turner: Where were you when he needed you?


Walter David Baker: I could not stop the minister from patting himself on the back so hard that he dislocated his elbow.
I want to move to another matter, the effect of this bill on one of the problems that has made life difficult for Canadians, for the working Canadian, the public servant, the senior citizen, and anyone who has found himself in the work force and has suffered the bone jarring effect of inflation. This government has admitted the cost of inflation. It has admitted that it can do nothing about it, so it says, and yet what does it do, in the face of the rhetoric in which it says its heart goes out to those people who are affected? It imposes this kind of taxation upon Canadians, a taxation which can have no other effect than to raise the cost of living for the average Canadian.
At one stage the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that he was going to wrestle inflation to the ground. But he retired from the field. Then we had the Minister of Finance one day saying in the House that he was going to ratchet inflation down. He ratcheted inflation up. The only person who could wrestle it to the ground was the leader of the Liberal party of Ontario, and it is on the shoulders of the Minister of Finance that rests the ultimate fate of that poor man. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the government House leader, in light of the very delicate situation with this bill, what he intends to do tomorrow?


An hon. Member:: Withdraw it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker it had been the suggestion of Mr. Speaker that there should be some consultation among the House leaders. There has been some. It has been without any agreed procedure as yet. I put before the opposition House leaders, however, two possible suggestions, one which would require unanimous consent, which would amend the ways and means motion so that it would be in accord with the bill itself, and the other would instruct the committee of the whole to amend the bill when it reaches that stage. Either of these procedures

could be followed. I understand that Mr. Speaker himself at three o'clock may have something to say, as he promised us today. It would be our intention, however, if possible to proceed with the debate on this bill. There is considerable urgency to get the refunds out, and I hope the opposition understands this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: If the opposition is quite content to have these refunds delayed indefinitely, that is on its shoulders.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the government House leader would meditate all night upon the third alternative, it is to withdraw the bill.



PROCEEDINGS OF ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the 10 cents gasoline tax is vital and very interesting, as we have seen, but I want to speak for a few moments about another subject which I think should occupy as much attention from this House, and one which, I dare say, is of even greater importance. It has to do with the facts surrounding the announcement at the World Food Council, which met two weeks ago in Rome, that despite all the efforts being made to close the gap between the rich and poor nations of the world, there were still 400 million people in the developing countries of the world who faced starvation in the years ahead.
The time for rhetoric on the subject of closing the rich-poor gap is clearly coming to an end, and that is why on May 14 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he would indicate in what way Canada would pursue the statement made by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Jamaica that a comprehensive and interrelated program of practical measures, including trade and monetary reform, be drawn up to close the gap between the rich and the poor nations. The Prime Minister responded that the Canadian government has set up an interdepartmental committee of experts who are now drawing up a report which, presumably, will be the basis of a Canadian policy to be presented to the seventh special session of the U.N. General Assembly.
The group of experts who have been appointed by the Commonwealth leaders are now meeting in Ottawa, and last week they were addressed by Mr. Ramphal, the new secretary general of the Commonwealth, who reiterated the fact that the time for rhetoric on this subject is over. He emphasized again the global urgency of finding ways
July 14, 1975

to develop a new economic order, which will be discussed at the forthcoming special session.
To underline the point I wish to make tonight, I want to quote from Mr. Ramphal's speech made here in Ottawa last week. He said:
The current international dialogue is no longer about 'whether' but about 'what'-what kind of new order shall take the place of the old; what shall be its quality, what ends shall it serve, what means shall it employ? It is a dialogue about the character of fundamental change- not about the need for change itself. It is a dialogue to which the best minds of our time must be addressed; for upon its outcome will depend the character of our world society, will depend the quality of our human condition, will depend the very basis of our planetary survival.
It is in the light of that comment that I ask tonight for some assurance from the government as to what is being done to draw up some specifics in the Canadian statement to be presented at the U.N. General Assembly.
I repeat that it is not enough to bring general assurances of support. We know that the new international economic order is demanding some support by the developed nations. If we are to have any kind of world order and any kind of unity at all in the United Nations, we cannot have the developed nations turing their backs on the specifics which are being suggested for implementation of a new order. We cannot have the developing nations insisting on things which are impossible for us to meet. Therefore, what middle ground can the Canadian government offer in an effort to bring leadership to the question of advancing what Mr. Ramphal says is absolutely necessary, and that is, movement toward the new international economic order?
I ask if it is possible for the government to indicate tonight whether it is prepared to give leadership with respect to a commodities agreement, which would be part of the Canadian statement. Is it possible for the government to indicate whether it would support greater international control over stockpiles of grain and other essential commodities?
Is it possible for the Canadian government to indicate to us tonight whether we will move to more multilateral assistance through U.N. agencies and downgrade our bilateral programs, which we know have been a source of the problems the CIDA agency has met? With respect to the $30 million cut in the CIDA budget, which was announced following the restraint program of the government, I ask also where those cuts are going to take place in the CIDA program. Is it possible for the government to indicate, so that the Canadian people will know, that the $30 million cut in the CIDA budget is not as important as any move which will support structural changes affecting commodity agreements which relate to international stockpiling and multilateral assistance, in short, to the three areas I have mentioned? The Canadian government ought to give leadership in them.
I also ask if it is possible for the Canadian public to be made aware of what the Canadian position will be at New York in September, so that the government may get some feedback from members of parliament and non-governmental organizations which are expert in international development assistance. It is not enough for the Canadian government, in secret enclaves and in committees, to arrive at a decision and then go down to New York. I maintain that the decision ought to be made known to this
Adjournment Debate
House and the public, so that we shall have the chance to respond to the Canadian government. We do not want to oppose for the sake of opposition; we want to respond for the sake of strengthening our approach in New York, an approach which will be vital to advancing the economic order I mentioned.
I suggest that the Canadian government ought to take one hour of prime viewing time on television and explain its case to the Canadian people. Let it sponsor a program. We do not need more pictures of starving children; we have seen enough of those. We need a program which will show what is being done today and what is contemplated. This program is necessary if the Canadian people are to understand that there is a way out of the terrible catastrophe which, apparently, is facing the world. That way out involves the mobilization of the political will of countries as strong as Canada. Those are the questions I should like to hear answered tonight, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, the Commonwealth heads of government recognized the need to take immediate steps toward the creation of a rational and equitable new international economic order. To that end they agreed that a small group of experts should be invited to draw up for consideration by Commonwealth governments possible practical measures and approaches, with a view to closing the gap between the rich and poor countries. Basically these measures would be designed to promote development and to increase the transfer of real resources to developing countries. This process, as was explicitly stated in the communique, is to take place "in the context of the current international dialogue". The United States, needless to say, is very much a part of that dialogue and we are pursuing consultations with it on these questions through the normal channels.
We welcome the statement by United States Secretary of State Kissinger that the United States is prepared to deal with the raw materials question with economic realism, political imagination, and understanding for the concerns of the developing world. This would seem to indicate that the United States is undertaking its own studies of developmental problems.
Clearly, the group of experts will not be meeting in an atmosphere of isolation from the world dialogue on developmental problems. There are continuous consultations on this topic in many forums, and Canada will be engaging in an intensive round of consultations with developed and developing countries in the weeks ahead leading up to the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on development in September.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) attended a meeting of foreign ministers of OECD member countries during the final week of May, and developmental issues were a major focus of discussions. The purpose of the consultations in the OECD, for example, was not to devise a unified plan but to consider how industrialized countries, for their part and in their different circumstances, can respond to the needs of developing countries.

July 14, 1975
Adjournment Debate


SOCIAL SECURITY-DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME PROGRAM
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 17, as reported in Hansard at page 3264, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) questions about the introduction of a guaranteed annual income program. The exchanges between us on that occasion are on record. No doubt the minister read them again while preparing to answer the question I am raising this evening, so I need not repeat those exchanges. Instead I want to urge on the minister the necessity of an answer as early as possible to my question regarding the introduction of a guaranteed annual income program.
Even since I asked the question on February 17, I suggest that conditions have become more urgent. I know that every time the minister and I discuss the escalation of old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments, we differ about the adequacy of that escalation. It is my contention that the escalation payments are always behind and that they do not cover the actual expenses faced by senior citizens. Perhaps we could carry on that argument, but I am sure the minister will agree with me that our senior citizens' needs are getting more difficult for them to meet.
During the course of the debate on the proposal for spouses' allowances for those between 60 and 65 who are living with a spouse over 65, a good deal was said about the needs of other persons in that age bracket. When we brought out that fact, the minister and those on the other side of the House reminded us, quite properly, of persons under 60 who are facing economic difficulties.
There is the whole problem that is faced by those who are employed but who have incomes that are insufficient to meet today's cost of living. In other words, there is poverty right across the board. A good deal has been said in recent weeks and months about the poverty faced by children in this land. I have in mind, of course, the report entitled "Poor Kids" and the excellent speeches which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made on the subject of poverty as it rears its ugly head through many areas of our society.
I listened with interest yesterday to a program over CBC radio regarding the status of women. At one point I heard the minister's voice answering questions, so I trust that he listened to that whole program as well. An important fact was brought out, namely, that one of the things that must be done if we are going to achieve real equality for women with men in our society is to arrive at a program that will provide women with incomes. I suggest that a guaranteed annual income might be a better answer than some of the other suggestions that are made.
I could go on, but I hope I have made my point that whether we are talking about older people, children, people who are working or people who are not working, there is in this land, despite its affluence, far too much poverty, far too many people without sufficient income to meet today's living costs.

The minister is committed to a guaranteed annual income program. It has to come and it has to come soon, not in the year 2000. I hope tonight the minister might be able to give an answer that I asked him for almost five months ago as to when we may expect the introduction of a guaranteed annual income program.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. Indeed, the hon. member has brought up a problem we have had the opportunity of discussing rather frequently when various bills pertaining to my department were studied here. I myself have had the opportunity of making a number of speeches on the subject outside the House, speeches to which the hon. member has kindly referred to on occasion.
May I say very simply that, at the time of the federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers, held in Ottawa from April 30 to May 1, 1975, in the opening speech which I made, and the text of which was handed to all hon. members on April 30 last, I suggested the implementation, as early as in 1976, of the part pertaining to "income support" of the guaranteed income program, which part would have resulted in effect in helping those people to whom the hon. member referred more specifically.
However, the proposition which I put to the provinces was not unanimously accepted. Some preferred to examine the issue in its minute details, and I refer the hon. member to the release published at the end of this conference which took place April 30 and May 1, 1975, a document of which hon. members have already received copies.
The government's purpose is still to complete the study of the program this year; the government would in fact be ready to start this program, at least in respect of income support, as early as next year. To achieve this, however, we need the agreement of the provinces, and I cannot assure the House that all necessary agreements will be obtained early enough to start this program as early as next year.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-CRASH OF PANARCTIC AIRCRAFT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON RESUMPTIONS OF INQUEST OR FEDERAL INQUIRY
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, on October 30 last a plane crashed in the Arctic, in the darkness there, and 32 people died. That accident was long enough in the news to catch my eye and to remind me that in the Speech from the Throne, to which we had listened a month or so earlier, there had been the promise of an independent accident investigation board. It struck me that this accident was serious enough to prompt one to ask when the government would be setting up the promised investigation board, and, should the board be set up, whether this particular accident involving such a heavy loss of life, would be referred to it.
The question might have died there, and in my mind, had I not received a letter from someone who knew something about these flights to the Arctic and who was concerned that the investigation would not be extensive enough to cover all the factors involved. The letter included these lines:
July 14, 1975

I hope you can encourage the rectification of the wrongs to all the families of the deceased men and the passage of stronger measures controlling the safety of the people travelling on charter flights.
This prompted me to continue to ask questions about the inquiry which I hoped would be getting under way. Some time later I received a telephone call from a caller who did not leave his name. He suggested seriously that attempts were being made to obstruct the inquiry. I put another question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in this regard. He admitted, and subsequent newspaper reports suggested, that there had indeed been a real attempt to obstruct the proceedings of the inquiry.
Eventually, of course, we heard that the inquest had been suspended because it had proved impossible to require the attendance of some of the people who could testify in connection with the accident. I continued to ask when the inquiry would be resumed. The latest of these questions was replied to on June 27 by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything further to add at this point in time.
Surely the bitterness of the families involved must be growing. The question was raised as a motion under Standing Order 43, a day or so ago in this House. I learned that no death certificates had been issued as yet in connection with the fatalities arising from this accident. So I repeat my question tonight in the hope a clearer answer will be given.
I am not talking now about the departmental inquiry which will, of course, go into the causes of the accident in terms of the aircraft but will not, I am sure, deal with all the factors of safety involved here, the inspection of all these flights into the north, and so on. I ask whether there will be a resumption of the inquest, and whether there will be a change of venue which will allow the facts to be brought forward and satisfy those who have waited so long for this particular accident, one of the most serious in Canada's aviation history, to be investigated properly.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker,
Adjournment Debate
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has looked into the question of the delays which appear to have occurred in relation to the conduct of the coroner's inquest at Frobisher Bay, which opened last April. As members may be aware, it appears that one Barry Morris, a pilot employed by Panarctic, has sought an application for a writ of certiorari to quash a bench warrant issued against him by the coroner and, pending the disposition of this action in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, the inquest proceedings cannot continue since one of the orders being sought in the application to the Supreme Court is for an adjournment of the inquest until such time as the Supreme Court has determined the application by Mr. Morris. I am given to understand that the certiorari proceedings will not be heard until September, and given the fact that this matter is before the court it would not be appropriate to make any comments on the issue of delay or any other matters surrounding the proceedings.
On the question of establishing a federal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the air crash of the Panarctic plane at Frobisher Bay, I would think it premature to embark on any such course of action until such time as it is apparent that the existing coroner's inquiry cannot adequately perform its functions. In addition, it is my understanding that an inquiry has been conducted into this crash by the Ministry of Transport under provisions of the Aeronautics Act. I am given to understand that the report of this inquiry should be completed by fall. Again, I feel it would be premature to consider other possible courses of inquiry into the causes of the crash until the report of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is available.
In conclusion I would note that the Attorney General, through Crown counsel in Yellowknife, has done his utmost to assist the coroner in the conduct of the inquest. The Attorney General will continue to offer his full cooperation and assistance to the coroner in seeking to bring before the inquest those persons who may have information relevant to the subject matter of the inquest.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, July 15, 1975