1975-07-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of increasing evidence that the United States of America is moving steadily toward approving legislation extending its control over ocean fisheries to 200 miles offshore, and despite this nation's other responsibilities and preoccupations in the world scene, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the Minister of State (Fisheries), the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister of Canada pool their respective courage and resolve and, instructed by this House, at least make a decision to follow the United States in their very logical move to protect that nation's marine resources, since it is obvious that by its indecision, which this government has exhibited on the world scene, no one, particularly the nations with fishing rights, will take seriously any longer Canada's empty and platitudinous pronouncements, and it is only by following as usual in the wake of the United States that we can protect our own fishing industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before presentation. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the announcement yesterday by the Department of Public Works that a contract has been awarded to Dillingham Corporation Canada Limited for some $322,000 for dredging in the Lower Fraser River, in view of the fact that the vice-president of this firm is presently under indictment flowing from the investigations of harbour dredging scandals, and in view of the fact that practically all major companies are maintained by government dredging contracts and have been implicated in these investigations, I
move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this government immediately proceed to give to the Department of Public Works full responsibility in the dredging of public waterways and that a moratorium be placed on further dredging contracts with private firms.


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.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important matter of urgent necessity.
Considering that the cost of living has increased in the main urban centres in Canada between May and June, that since June 1964 the cost of living has gone up by 10.6 per cent in the Montreal area alone in comparison with 9.4 per cent in the Quebec City area, and since that staggering rise of prices has reached disastrous proportions threatening to destroy entirely our economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House enjoin the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to consider without delay the policies advocated by the Social Credit Party of Canada to put an end to the devastation of inflation and further protect the purchasing power of all Canadian citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such a consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 
SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion.

July 22, 1975
Oral Questions
In view of the continuing discrimination against single or widowed people between 60 and 65 years of age, and considering that a great many do not get the necessary minimum income, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to review his policies in that regard so as to make needy people 60 years old and over eligible for the old age security pension.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State for External Affairs having said on July 2 in the House that at some point the government intended to review the results of the Law of the Sea conference with the Canadian participants at that conference, I would like to ask the acting minister if he can tell the House whether this review has been started, whether a date has been set for the meeting with the Canadian participants and whether the review has been completed yet.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is expected in the House momentarily. I think it would be better if the question were directed to him when he appears.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask questions of the same minister on a similar matter, so I should like to postpone my questions as well.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport

concerning a matter I raised yesterday with regard to Mr. Cho, Mr. McGuire and Mr. Chew, who were fired from Canadian National Telecommunications. Can the minister tell the House why, in firing these three men, Canadian National Telecommunications has chosen to overlook the union's grievance procedure, which states that an employee cannot be discharged until his case has been thoroughly reviewed and he has been advised of the reasons for the review?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I answered yesterday that I was inquiring into that case. At first sight this is a case which is worrying me very much but the hon. member gave me time to get in touch with CN, which I did. They are supposed to give me an answer. In my opinion, this has been done in a very awkward way.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Solicitor General on the same subject. Can he confirm whether in fact the RCMP security division is running security checks on Canadian National Telecommunications employees, and if so, why this investigation is necessary?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that. After the hon. member's intervention yesterday under Standing Order 43 I asked for a report but I have not received it yet.


AIRPORTS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Noting that the minister will meet with his Ontario counterpart in the near future to discuss the timing of the construction of road infrastructure for Pickering airport and noting that, although Mirabel airport is expected to open this October, there is also a lack of viable road infrastructure between the new and old airport and between Mirabel and Montreal, may I ask the minister whether his government has developed a contingency plan with a view to co-ordinating and integrating airport road infrastructure by the federal and provincial governments involved?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister considering a moratorium on Pickering and
July 22, 1975

Mirabel airports until the road infrastructure problems are resolved?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Last week, the Quebec Farm Producers' Association submitted to the minister a brief on the recent decision of the Canadian Dairy Commission to increase by 45 cents a hundredweight the price of powdered milk for export. Considering that this brief is apparently realistic and quite fair, and that it apparently rectifies an injustice of which producers are the victims, can the minister advise the House of his reply to this brief or say whether he has made up his mind about it, and what he intends to do to solve this problem?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we did receive a very good brief from the organization that the hon. member mentions. They made many suggestions and they are being considered.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Considering the problems this is causing to dairy producers, as well as the urgency of the issue, can the minister advise the House whether he will introduce legislation to provide these producers with the revenues which were promised to them on April 1 of this year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they know they are living within the agreement. The Canadian Dairy Commission is abiding by the agreement with the provinces. They have made several suggestions concerning measures to overcome this problem forcing them to take the lesser return for their products, which we also have certain reservations about, but because of world conditions and because the European community has dumped its skim milk products on the world market the price of skim milk product in Canada has been depressed. These are all being considered as are other suggestions that they have made. They made several suggestions outside their agreement that we are also considering.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


VIETNAMESE REFUGEES-LACK OF SECURITY SCREENING AT FORT CHAFFEE-SOURCE OF SECURITY INFORMATION OBTAINED
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of allegations being made regarding the lack of security control in the screening of Viet Nam refugees at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, would the minister explain why no RCMP officer was assigned to visa control at Fort Chaffee and in view of the lack of RCMP participation could the minister inform this House who provided Canadian immigration officers with security information that was required?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the very early stages of the movement of Vietnamese refugees, as in characteristic of all refugee movements, certain examination criteria were relaxed in the interests of reuniting families in particular very quickly. Security measures were very shortly introduced, however, at all locations from which we anticipated applications. I would have to have more information from the hon. member on the exact time he is talking about. As of several weeks ago, security checks were being made where that is totally possible. In the meantime, as I indicated to the House on other occasions, in accordance with standard practice we brought in people on ministers' permits. This does not grant them landed status but gives them the opportunity to be re-united with their families. They can move quickly. At the same time, this procedure gives us time to make the necessary background checks and validate or otherwise their desirability or eligibility for landed status.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE VIETNAMESE REFUGEES NOT GRANTED LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS UNTIL SECURITY REPORTS OBTAINED
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of his answer, will the minister confirm that security checks are being done into the background of Vietnamese refugees who have been granted ministers' permits which are valid generally for one year, that the ministers' permits will not be extended and that landed immigrant status will not be granted before Canadian authorities have obtained security reports on those people?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with few exceptions, that is standard procedure.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the statement he

July 22, 1975
Oral Questions
made in the House on July 2, to the effect that at some point the government will review with Canadian participants the results of the Law of the Sea conference. Has this review started, has a date been fixed for the meeting or, in view of its importance, has the review actually been completed?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I undertook at the Law of the Sea conference to meet with the delegation upon the conclusion of the conference and to have that meeting in Canada. I have not yet summoned, called or convened such a meeting of the delegation. I intend to do so. However, as part of the over-all consultation on this question, I shall meet tomorrow with at least two of the provincial participants at the Law of the Sea conference, namely, the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland and the minister of fisheries for Nova Scotia. The purpose of that meeting will be to discuss the whole question of fisheries and their relationship to the law of the sea.


FISHERIES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not think that because delay may have seemed appropriate yesterday, it is necessarily appropriate in this area. Has the minister reason to believe that the government of Canada can achieve the 40 per cent reduction in the ICNAF quotas in the September meeting, which I understand is to be held in Montreal? What specific reason has the minister to believe that Canada can achieve the objective which it failed to achieve in the earlier meetings this summer and spring.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, probably the Minister of State (Fisheries) is in a better position to judge the matter of the ICNAF meeting which will be held in September. I would prefer it if he would deal with that question.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, it was clear in the minds of our negotiating team-I have had a long session this morning, and will again meet this afternoon two of our ICNAF commissioners-that two meetings would probably be required before the 40 per cent reduction is accepted by many nations. We are now having bilateral discussions with some nations of ICNAF, and we hope they will see the necessity and wisdom of our proposals.


EFFECT OF CANADIAN POSITION ON 200-MILE FISHING ZONE ON ICNAF NEGOTIATIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of State for Fisheries not agree that his bargaining position at the September conference, as was the case at the earlier conference, has been weakened by the indication of the

Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada will not resort to a unilateral declaration with regard to the 200-mile economic zone and that other fishing countries, knowing that Canada has committed itself to proceed through another Law of the Sea conference, are laughing at Canada all the way to the banks, if you will pardon the expression?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition has interpreted our stance as being completely closed on the possibility of unilateral attainment of jurisdiction, he has not read the reports properly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, I have read it and it is clear.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On May 1 in the House the minister said he would consider my suggestion that if the Law of the Sea Conference failed, he would make a statement on motions outlining the position and action Canada would take as a result of the failure. Is the minister now prepared to make that statement on motions? Will he do that after he meets with the two provincial ministers tomorrow? I ask that this be done at the earliest possible date because the fisheries are dying a slow death.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member in his concerns about the state of the east coast fishery. However, I believe that my commitment to make a statement in the House or my undertaking to consider making a statement was fully discharged in the full day debate that we had on that question not so long ago and on which subject the House reached a decision. I would advise the hon. member that in my view the Law of the Sea Conference was not a failure, and that the single negotiating text which was produced at the conference met almost all of the significant objectives which Canada had in the field of fisheries. It would be wrong to describe it as a failure.
In the meantime, however, we as a government are considering as one of our options for future action the question of unilateral action. However, as the Prime Minister pointed out in answer to a question just recently, it would be misleading to the fishermen to hold out the expectation that a unilateral declaration would be an instant solution to the problems of the east coast fishery.
July 22, 1975

Oral Questions FISHERIES



FISHERIES


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the fact that while these ongoing meetings are taking place the fishing industry is deteriorating to a state of oblivion, has the minister had consultation with the Minister of National Defence with regard to stepping up the surveillance capability? If so, what action is he going to take against foreign draggers that ignore our ICAF quota and continue to fish for our marine resources?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a mood of total pessimism which has to be questioned. A major company on the east coast last week gave its financial statement for the last quarter, indicating that its profit position came from an improvement in landings. I also have information from some members of this House to the effect that landings in some areas of Newfoundland are good and that some fish are being turned away because the plants cannot process them.
Having said that, I continue to recognize that we must obtain jurisdiction off our shores. To this end, we are pursuing bilateral discussions with a good number of countries. We have already had discussions with the Norwegians, Americans and Mexicans. I would agree that also in the surveillance field we should all live within the rules of ICNAF. That does not mean we cannot increase surveillance. In fact, we have already indicated to National Defence that we desire this to be done.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my final supplementary to the Minister of National Defence. In light of recommendations made by certain high ranking officers in the Canadian army, will the minister consider, as part of the training formula, that elements of the Canadian forces provide surveillance activity on the east coast of Newfoundland as this is the season when the foreign draggers will be taking advantage of the fisheries off our coast? Further, will he consider increasing the Canadian forces militia in Newfoundland? I would venture to warn the minister that if this is not done, the fishermen will soon be taking action on their own.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of State (Fisheries) indicated, National Defence is providing full support to his department. But I will be glad to take into consideration the representations made by the hon. member.



EFFECT ON INDUSTRY OF FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT COMPREHENSIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In light of the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may I ask whether the hon. gentleman shares the view of the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board that failure to implement a comprehensive resource management program immediately will have dire economic and social consequences for the future viability of both the fishing and the fish processing industries? If so, does the minister believe that continuing negotiations in connection with this important matter is the best way of dealing with the situation?


Roméo LeBlanc: am glad that the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board has read some of the speeches I have been making. I have been making the very point that extended jurisdiction is a very high priority, and we are pursuing this objective. As for continued conversations, it is obvious that even when we did declare, unilaterally, a 12-mile limit we immediately entered into discussions with the countries involved. What we are now doing is holding some bilateral consultations and we shall increase the level of these consultations with the countries involved in the North Atlantic, mainly, in anticipation of the extended jurisdiction. I consider this to be a very progressive step.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John Edward Broadbent: Bearing in mind that the government has pursued this matter by negotiation both at the conference which was held at Caracas last year and subsequently at the conference in Geneva this year, and that presumably it plans to continue doing so in New York next year, may I now ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he does not consider it is time to assert our position on this issue in a unilateral way thus enabling the people of Canada to exercise jurisdictional authority for 200 miles off our coast so that we shall be able to deal with this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is the last part of the question which shows the weakness of the hon. member's position, namely, his assumption that we shall be able to deal with the problem. It is not clear to me and it is not clear to the government that a simple declaration of unilateral action will, in fact, deal with the problem in the way which is expected. I believe that a candid exploration of the situation with fishermen and with Canadian citizens generally would help to disclose some of the risks attendant upon unilateral action. The hon. member might wish to consider this aspect. However, we have consistently stated that one of the options before the Government of Canada was

July 22, 1975
Oral Questions
unilateral action. I can tell the hon. member that if I recommend such a course to my colleagues I would want to be certain that taking that course would bring substantial benefit within a reasonable period to the east coast fishery of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister not agree that if the Government of Canada took the legal position that we have jurisdictional authority extending for 200 miles off the coast, the Minister of State (Fisheries) would be in a much stronger legal position to specify the amount of fishing that is to be done off our coast so that we could conserve our stocks of fish and be in a position to restore our seriously deteriorating fishing industry.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must obviously recognize that the current international law is not as he states it to be. The purpose of the negotiations is to change the international law in order to give the coastal states jurisdiction which is not enjoyed by the coastal states at the present time. What the hon. member is saying to me is that we should take the law into our own hands, and at some point it may be necessary to do that. But if it is necessary to do that, I want to be sure that it will bring substantial benefits to Canada and to Canadian fishermen and will not merely lead to simple rhetoric on the day of the announcement.



POSSIBILITY OF CONDUCTING GEOTHERMIC RESEARCH AT ABANDONED MINE OF NORMETAL

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In the report prepared by the task force on energy research and development recently tabled by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources one reads that the heat within the earth is another source of energy which may offer development possibilities, and that research should be done in such areas of Canada as would lend themselves to it. The minister doubtless is aware of the closing, last April, of the Normetal mine in Abitibi, and that the main shaft of that mine exceeds a depth of 8,000 feet. Would the minister point out that fact to the task force on energy development? It might consider that mine most important and easily accessible for research.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, to answer as detailed a question as that one, I shall have to look into the matter, after which I shall report to the hon. member.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that posed by the Leader of the Opposition to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Congress of the United States has before it legislation that will unilaterally declare a 200 mile limit for that country to protect its fishing industry, and in view of the fact that there is the impression abroad that Canada does not have the resolve or determination to take similar action, is the minister prepared, as one of the representatives of an east coast constituency and who presumably understands the question better than his predecessor, to place before the House a resolution by which the Parliament of Canada can show the world that the people of Canada are resolved to protect the interests of its fishing industry, which would provide the minister with the necessary muscle to put that option into effect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, because one of his colleagues tried that approach a few weeks ago and the proposition was turned down flatly by the House of Commons, not by the United States Congress.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is precisely because the House rejected the resolution that we put forward, based on technical arguments advanced by the minister, that I am asking the minister, and through him the government, and especially the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, whether the government would be prepared to lay on the order paper of the House of Commons a resolution by which the Parliament of Canada could express its concern over the depletion of our vital resources off the east coast as a consequence of over-fishing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HOUSING


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Following representations by the Toronto Limited Dividend Tenants Association, is the minister now prepared to ensure input from the tenants into the rent review process between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the landlord?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position to make a definitive statement but I have reached a decision with my officials today-
July 22, 1975


Mr. Nowlan:: Hellyer wrote that five years ago.


Barnett Jerome Danson: -that there be a rent review process established for assisted housing under the limited dividend program, the details of which I am working out with the corporation, the landlords and the tenants association themselves. So that we will be having a rent review process in force shortly.



NATURAL GAS-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION IN VIEW OF ALLEGED MEMORANDUM INDICATING IMMINENT SHORTAGE

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding press reports of an internal memorandum from the National Energy Board supply panel indicating that the government has known for the past six months that we would face a natural gas shortage in the 1970s. What action has the minister taken in light of this information; and in particular, did he initiate any discussions with American authorities regarding the possibility of a phase out of gas exports, and did he have any discussions with the provincial governments regarding what measures could be taken to restrain consumer demand in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the document to which the hon. member refers was an internal memorandum prepared within the Energy Board, in effect summarizing the oral hearings and evidence which had been taken in the hearings that were conducted last fall on the question of gas supply, and that it was preparatory to the board's writing its final report which was tabled last week. I did not see the document in question, and since it was an internal communication within the board it would be subject to the final judgment of the board which was rendered in the board's report, the copy of which I tabled.



NATURAL GAS-EFFECT OF HIGHER PRICES ON SUPPLY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is surprising that a report as important as that was not conveyed to the minister. Since the recent National Energy Board report was prepared before the increase in the price of gas was announced, has the minister's department or the National Energy Board made an estimate of what effect a higher price will have on additional supplies; and because shallow wells may now become economically viable, whether or not this will have any effect on the date at which Canada will face an acute shortage of natural gas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe at this time it would be difficult to make anything in the nature of a reliable estimate about the amount of additional work which will be carried out. It is the government's belief that in general terms both the combination of an increase
Oral Questions
in price and a net back to the producers and also the adjustment of the taxation regime have created a favourable climate for further supplies in Canada. As to whether this is brought about will depend, of course, on the actual facts as they occur.



NATURAL GAS-REASON FOR FAILURE OF ENERGY BOARD TO ESTIMATE RESERVES IN MACKENZIE DELTA

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister why the National Energy Board, in its recent report, gave its own estimate of proven gas reserves in southern areas along with the estimate of the oil and gas industry, while in the matter of proven reserves in the Arctic it gave only the estimates of the oil industry? May I ask the minister whether the National Energy Board or his department has made an estimate of the gas reserves in the Mackenzie valley delta, and, if so, would the minister undertake to secure those estimates and to make them available to the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the board has consistently followed the policy of not establishing estimates for gas fields which are not yet accessible for use within Canada. In particular, it will not regard as reserves that which has not yet been connected up and could be used by consumers. Of course, the board report specifically says that.
At such time as the application for construction of the Mackenzie valley pipeline proceeds, this will be one of the principal questions upon which the board will have to take evidence and then arrive at its own judgment. The board, I take it, followed a practice which seems to me quite sensible, namely that it should not make up its mind as to what the reserves are prior to having heard all the facts on the question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, since in answer to a former question we have been advised that the House shall not be given an opportunity to debate the problem of the Atlantic fishery I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he and his Cabinet members would agree that there should be a ministerial presence at all times at the national conference which will relate to the Atlantic fishery so that those countries negotiating in respect of that fishery will understand the importance the government of Canada places on this question and the matter of protection.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will note the hon. member's representation.

July 22, 1975
Oral Questions



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding the fact that there are 200 odd fishing vessels off Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy, and the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs obviously has some difficulty about a unilateral declaration of a 200-mile limit, could the Prime Minister please tell the House and the country if the question of regional disparity is still one of his prerogatives since he was reported as saying, according to a transcript from his own office:
It's going to hurt Canadians in various parts of the country in the sense that they won't have the benefits to grow as fast as they have been growing in the past.
He was referring to cutbacks. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the cutback that has been announced of $10 million of the small craft harbours program is to be added to the difficult problem of the 200-mile limit which obviously affects those people in areas of regional economic disparity. Has the government changed its prerogative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure to which prerogative the member is referring so I will have to say we have not changed it. But on the 200-mile limit to which the hon. member makes reference, I should like to give an answer which I think will appeal to the sense of fairness of the House and of all Canadians. Perhaps I should acknowledge the leader of the New Democratic Party, whose sense of fairness is not very well recognized.


Mr. Hees:: Here comes that boiling point.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not really need that help. I can wait for a moment. I wanted to refer to the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the leader of the New Democratic Party on the 200-mile limit. I just want to remind the House that half a dozen European nations and others have exercised historic rights over what has been known for many hundreds of years as the high seas and a unilateral declaration of law as we see it would withdraw from these nations rights which they have been exercising, I repeat, for hundreds of years. That is the reason, when it comes to the matter of changing an international law, we find it better to get agreement. We think this is the way the laws between nations should be made. I think this is an argument the opposition should keep in mind.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate in part the Prime Minister's response. My question was rather convoluted but no more convoluted than some of the answers from the Secretary of State for External Affairs about this very confusing situation. My point is, admitting the international difficulties-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a supplementary question perhaps he would put it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am certainly going to put it, Mr. Speaker. Even though there might be some irritation on the other

side that we are sitting here on July 22 I intend to stand here until I put the question, so if members opposite will shut up I will put the question. I fully appreciate some of the answers of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and/or the Prime Minister's response, but my question to the Prime Minister is this: Because we have only had two main programs since 1968, bilingualism and regional disparity, I would ask the Prime Minister for a moment to forget about the 200-mile limit and explain why he is hitting at the small craft harbour areas of Canada on the east coast and the west coast which are areas of economic disparity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, you may say "order" but I am going to say "order" too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the greatest respect to the hon. member I should say that, because of the importance of the subject, I have recognized almost exclusively questions about the east coast. I allowed a good deal of leeway on that subject. However, I suggest that rather than asking a question the hon. member is making a representation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is I am asking the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am trying to help the government. I am admitting that there may be some problems in declaring unilaterally a 200-mile limit and, therefore, I ask the Prime Minister why he does not revise the restraints in respect of the $10 million cut with regard to the small craft harbour areas of Canada on the east and west coast which areas are regionally depressed economically and are within the power of the federal government to help.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have explained that what the government has done in its restraint program has been to restrain the rate of growth of various programs.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: They are not growing. They are dying.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are not cutting the programs below zero. What we are saying is that the rate of growth of the various programs which make up our budget will be slowed down. I think in this we are joining the opposition and other people in a desire to restrain government spending. We are trying to do this in every possible area. This should not convey the impression that we are cutting out programs. We are modifying the rate of growth.



HOUSING


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Trinity and is also addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister prepared to
July 22, 1975

review the minimum 15-year mortgage term for limited dividend projects in order to end the possibility of owners of these buildings receiving subsidized speculation by refinancing the mortgages after 15 years thereby freeing them of the obligation to provide low cost housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have not been giving that immediate consideration. The objective now is to see many of the limited dividend houses built and to make certain that the tenants living in them in the 15-year period when there is a limited rental agreement are satisfied that the rentals are fair and encourage the building of more rental accommodation. I believe the hon. member realizes that after the 15-year period the landlord then has the obligation to refinance. The financing no longer applies in that case, but if the government financing continues beyond the 15 years then of course our rental agreement will still remain in force.



ALLEGED FLUCTUATION OF PRICES CAUSED BY TRADING ON WINNIPEG AND CHICAGO COMMODITY EXCHANGES- POSSIBILITY OF INVESTIGATION

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the charges by the presidents of the three prairie wheat pools that in spite of the fact that there has been no basic change in the world demand supply picture for grains there are excessive grain price fluctuations being caused by trading on the Winnipeg and Chicago commodity exchanges, I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of those charges, he and his officials or the Canadian Wheat Board have made any investigation into this and whether or not there indeed have been excessive fluctuations as charged by these three presidents?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the Winnipeg grain exchange is concerned, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture just recently announced the appointment of a supervisor at that exchange so that inquiry certainly can be put to him. Of course, as the Canadian grain exported is not exported in effect through the medium of that exchange to any large extent it is therefore totally under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would, of course, have no knowledge about the way in which the Chicago exchange is operating.



PROPOSAL THAT ALL GRAIN BE MARKETED THROUGH WHEAT BOARD-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I direct a supplementary question to the minister in order to put an end to the nonsense that goes on in commodity exchanges? Would he now accede to the unanimous request which has been made for many years by the three prairie pools and NFU, and now most recently repeated by Mr. Sneath, President of the Manitoba wheat pool in
Oral Questions
which he demands that all grains be marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board rather than through any exchanges?


Otto Emil Lang: The decision as to whether or not grain is marketed using the exchange is one that is taken by the people handling the grain, and indeed those same gentlemen from the pools in their operations frequently use the exchange in the marketing of their product, so I find the statement slightly strange. The fact of the matter is that we attempted a year ago and two years ago to solve another problem, that is that there be a fair pricing arrangement in relation to grains throughout the country, and we adopted an open policy giving farmers throughout the country access to grain held by other farmers. That is now possible. If the exchange is used, it is a choice by the buyers, sellers, or their agents.



FINANCE


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Is the minister in a position to tell us which provinces have officially objected to the special excise tax on gasoline?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I shall have to look up the premiers' statements to give the hon. member a specific answer.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since Bill C-66 has come to a deadlock, would the minister tell us whether he intends to abandon this bill or move closure pursuant to Standing Order 75?


John Napier Turner: I believe the proposal put forward by the hon. member is somewhat academic.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since Egypt announced more than one week ago its refusal to consent to the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations emergency force in the Sinai, has the minister discussed with other governments concerned, particularly with the Secretary General of the UN, at their meeting last Friday, the future of this emergency force, and does he not see there an opportunity to show initiative?

July 22, 1975
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the question of the hon. member, may I say that the subject was discussed with the Secretary General last Friday. It is my expectation that following the determination of the Security Council, it may be that a renewed mandate will be possible for the force in the Middle East. At least, that was the atmosphere which prevailed in New York on Friday.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as the hon. member for Leeds is now at home recovering from his recent cardiac attack and the hon. member's physician has recommended swimming as part of his rehabilitation, and inasmuch as no man can live on "43s" alone, would the right hon. gentleman consider letting the hon. member for Leeds use the pool at 24 Sussex Drive to aid his rehabilitation and hasten his return to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will even let him use some of the sundries, the cost of which he has been seeking to know.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, further to questions that were posed by my leader to the Prime Minister yesterday regarding the devastation that has just about obliterated the business district in the town of Springhill, I would like to ask a specific question of the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that when the 1958 disaster occurred in Springhill the federal government stepped in and gave stability and viability to the economy of Springhill through the establishment of a penal institution there-two of them, as a matter of fact-could the Solicitor General indicate if he could reorientate his thinking and that of his department to try to enlarge the medium security penal institution there and employ more people or establish a minimum security institution there so as to give the business community some incentive to reestablish the businesses that were destroyed by the fire.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion discussed this with me yesterday. I told him that under the new program of construction in the pentitentiary service we are moving to smaller institutions, so it is not likely that we would increase the size of the present institution in Springhill. But I told him we would look at the possibility of locating one of the newer, smaller institutions there, and the officials are looking at that possibility.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In view of the fact that many persons who try to better themselves by taking courses find their UIC claim terminated due to the "four week nil pay" regulations, will the minister look into the possibility of correcting this discrepancy in the act which penalizes those who are honestly seeking to improve their qualifications for a job?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the relationship of training and improvement to the ability to find jobs, or better jobs, is part of the review we are undertaking in connection with the act and part of our manpower policy.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Considering the fact that the residents of northwest metro Toronto, involving half a dozen federal constituencies, have waited since 1968 for relief from the ever increasing airport noise problems, and those same residents tolerated a further two year delay in the airport inquiry confirming the need for Pickering, can the minister assure the people in the Malton area that he will not allow the government of Ontario to cause any further unnecessary delays-


An hon. Member:: Where are you from?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I represent my constituents and I would appreciate it if the opposition would allow me a chance to speak on their behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Can I have the assurance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: You see the opportunity which they give to other parts of Canada. Can I assure my constituents that the federal government will not allow the government of Ontario to cause any further unnecessary delay but will force immediate and frank talks about the facts at Malton and Pickering?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that the people from the Malton area have been promised that there would be no extension of runways in Malton. As long as I am Minister of Transport there will be no such extension. However, that does not
July 22, 1975

mean there will be no extension in facilities, but so far as runways are concerned, no more runways will be added.



PICKERING AND MIRABEL-POSSIBILITY OF MORATORIUM UNTIL ACCESS ROAD PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED

Jean Marchand: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in the second question put by the hon. member for Central Nova I thought he was only referring to Pickering. He later told me in an exchange of notes that he was referring to Pickering and to Mirabel. My answer would have been that there is a moratorium until I meet with Mr. Rhodes, and that is only on Pickering.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the west has been recognized because Canada has a west coast as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: My question is supplementary to the series initiated by the Leader of the Opposition and it is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister made any proposals to U.S. authorities relating to the manner in which the boundaries will eventually have to be extended between Canada and the United States up to the 200 mile limit or to the edge of the continental shelf, whichever might be the case, on the east coast and on the west coast? May I just remind the minister that there are two boundaries on the west coast, one in the north and one in the south.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the question as notice.



FISHERIES


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of State (Fisheries).
I would like to know whether the minister ensured that the conclusions drawn from research made on migration and on the spawning grounds of commercial fish by his department will be fully taken into account when defining the frontiers between the Canadian and American fishing zones, when extending both jurisdictions to 200 nautical miles, and in particular whether the Juan de Fuca Canyon
Oral Questions
and the bank named La Perouse, on the west coast, will be under Canadian jurisdiction.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the hon. member's question, all the more so because when discussing jurisdiction we must not forget there are two oceans, namely the Pacific and the Atlantic. Any oversimplified solution such as "unilateral declaration", which is proposed for demagogical reasons or any other, must take into account the grave implications on salmon which does not recognize jurisdictions be they over 200 miles or elsewhere.
As for the specific question of the hon. member concerning the procedures for the extension of the zones lying between us and the Americans, it goes without saying that this must be considered through bilateral negotiations which are already intricate enough with respect to salmon interception. But I trust that with a friendly country like the United States it will be easy to come to an agreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday last I gave notice that I intended to raise a point of order relating to the answers I had been receiving with regard to the policy of the government on nuclear reactors. I deferred pursuing the point until the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) was back in the House, since he is involved in this question along with the government House leader. On June 27 I questioned the government House leader about the contract with Argentina and I said:
Is it the position of the government that the contract for the Cordoba nuclear generating plant-
That is the Argentinian plant.
-made provision for subsequent negotiation of safeguards-
In reply, the government House leader said:
-the answer to the first part of the question is yes, the contract is subject to a bilateral agreement on safeguards.
Later, on the same day, the same minister said the following:
I am informed there is no doubt about the fact that the fulfilment of the contract itself depends upon a bilateral agreement on adequate safeguards.
In the House, some days later, on July 16, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was asked:
Was there any provision in that contract negotiated with Argentina in 1973 requiring subsequent negotiation of safeguards, other than the agreement to be negotiated with IAEA-
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources replied:
No, sir, that contract was just according to the then general safeguard policy of Canada, namely, the international standard ... the additional standards for the completion of the Argentine contract have been, if you like, unilaterally imposed by Canada at a subsequent date.
Indicating that the answer given to me earlier by the government House leader in his capacity as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs was clearly misleading. Then the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was asked on July 16, the same day, the following:
-what safeguards the Canadian government is now seeking in respect of this Argentina project?

July 22, 1975
Oral Questions
Safeguards which were not in the original contract. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
At that time-
In 1973.
-the international standards did not provide for restriction on explosions expressed to be for peaceful rather than weapons purposes. Canada decided as a matter of principle, subsequent to the Indian explosion, to put on a higher level of standards which were set out in the statement I made-
Indicating that the additional safeguard being negotiated with Argentina now is the prohibition of the use of any Canadian facility or reactor or materials provided to Argentina and the restriction that these could not be used by Argentina or by any other country even for peaceful explosions. But I find that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) tabled an exchange of letters which together constitute the contract between Canada and Argentina on September 10, 1974, which reads in part as follows:
In view of Canada's obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is Canadian export policy that all material, nuclear material, equipment, facilities and technology supplied from or by Canada will be used only for peaceful purposes and will not in particular be used for the development or manufacture of any nuclear explosive device.
It seems as if this exchange of letters which constituted a supplementary contract back in September of 1974 had already covered the point which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told us was the sole additional safeguard which Canada is now trying to negotiate with Argentina.
With regard to this Italian business, on July 9 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated to me in the House, in response to a question, that Canada was retaining a right of veto on any sale which might be made anywhere in the world by the Italian licensee. The minister found he made a mistake and he quickly corrected that. The next day, in response to a question in the House, he told me that any sale made by that Italian licensee would be subject to the Canadian standard of safeguards. That is what the minister said in the House.
Yesterday, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether that was a correct statement which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had made and he said he did not know, that he would have to verify it. I think there is enough confusion in the nuclear policy of the government already, fundamentally and intrinsically, without more being created by these misleading and evasive answers we have been receiving on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the statements as set out by me with regard to the safeguards policy are entirely correct. They are not at all misleading. I suggest that if there has been any misleading attempted here, it has been by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -who was trying to juggle answers and dates in such a way as to pretend that what happened before happened afterwards in that respect. I would point out that as the government House leader, the

President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) acting as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, said, there was a bilateral agreement entered into between the IAEA and Argentina and this was stipulated for by the contract, which is exactly what the hon. gentleman had said and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not try to distort the record by pretending it is anything else.
With respect to the Italian contract, I indicated in the first place that, as I had said on December 20, 1974, of course Atomic Energy of Canada had been authorized to enter into negotiations with the Italian company, that those negotiations are approaching completion, that the company, Atomic Energy, is required to come back to the government with a draft of the proposed agreement to obtain our approval, but that in any event, as stipulated by the safeguards statement on December 20 of last year, any such contract between AECL and the Italian company will be subject to the Canadian safeguard requirements.
In particular, there will be the treaty between the government of Italy and the government of Canada stipulating the limitations imposed upon any Italian company operating within Italy, and also stipulating that in the event of a sale by the Italian company of the Canadian technology to any other country, Italy will be required to get a safeguards agreement of the same standards, including international inspection, as we as Canadians require of the Italians. In other words, for the Italians to be able to licence technology to anyone else, they will have to secure from the buyer exactly the same standards as we secure from them.
In summary, we set up in quite succinct terms the limitations that we as Canadians are going to impose upon the sale of uranium, upon the sale of equipment, including the CANDU reactor, and upon Canadian technology whether or not accompanied by equipment to other states either for their own use or for resale. The restriction is that whether it be for explosive purposes, whether stated by that country, for peaceful purposes or indeed for nonpeaceful purposes, the Canadian equipment, technology and uranium may not be used for that purpose. For this purpose we will seek country to country treaties of the kind tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to protect this requirement.
A final statement I would make with regard to the Argentine contract is that discussions are proceeding. They are related to further safeguards with respect to reprocessing of the spent fuel from a CANDU reactor within Argentina or the transfer of either spent fuel or technology outside of Argentina to any other country. The completion of that particular requirement of the government of Canada will be precedent to the further performance of Canada under this contract: that negotiations now under way to their successful completion to our satisfaction remains, in our view, a prime condition of our performance, and that nuclear transfers will not go through unless those Canadian standards are met.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has raised, of course, a question of debate as to differences and discrepancies in points of view. It is really a non-point of order, and it has been contributed to equal-
July 22, 1975

Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
ly by both sides. I think we should now move on to something else.
['1. As of July 1, 1974 there were 414 claims awaiting hearing by an Entitlement Board. As of June 1, 1975 the number was 706. In addition, 3,042 claims were in various stages of preparation for a hearing as of July 1, 1974 and 3,730 as of June 1, 1975. This includes claims where the Statement of Case is held by the applicant or his counsel and for which the notice of readiness to proceed with the hearing has not yet been received by the Canadian Pension Commission.\n2. Yes.']
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order in the interests of the fishing industry which is now in a state of crisis. The'^Vlinister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) inadvertently, I am sure, misled the House when replying to a question-based upon lack of knowledge of the facts-when he referred to fish having to be dumped overboard at the present time because fish processing plants were unable to receive them.
If the minister knew what he was talking about, he would know that this particular phenomenon happens every year. It refers to the trap fishery, which is of very short duration-just a few months-and occurs at a time when the fleet moves close to the shore. It has nothing to do with the decline in fish stocks. We are faced with the paradox that at a time when the fishery resources are declining because of overfishing by foreign fleets, we see thousands of pounds of fish from trap fisheries dumped overboard because of the failure of the minister and his predecessors to provide proper, refrigerated holding units.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if I misled the House, it was not intentional. It had been reported to me by the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker) that the plants in his area were not able to handle some of the fish being landed, which were quite plentiful. I would point out to the hon. member that if members of his own party, in this case the government of Newfoundland, had spent as much energy working for the development of holding facilities as all Atlantic provinces should have, we would be in a much better position to handle fish for food instead of fish for meal. I think he should relay that message to Premier Moores, if he has reached Newfoundland after his visit to Ottawa yesterday.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a question I asked yesterday in the House. The minister said it was a very serious question and he wanted to discuss it with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet. In the morning I telephoned the minister's office and gave him notice. At nine o'clock in the morning I telephoned the offices of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) and the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) to make sure we would get some answers, because we were led to believe that matters of national security were at stake and also some very serious unfair labour practices.
I think this House has a right to know when we are going to get an answer. We got the same answer today: they have not had a chance to check into it. What does a private member have to do to get an answer? You cannot be more fair than giving notice ahead of time. The minister is still saying he has not had time to check, however. Three men have been fired and branded as security risks, and the minister is taking it lightly.
Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed by the Chair that I will be on the "late show" tonight. I hope the minister will have a better answer, or I will have to take up more time of the House. This is a serious matter and we are not getting answers,



Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, a report to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency prepared by P. S. Ross & Partners, dated July, 1975.


FISHERIES
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the thirteenth report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane) moved: that the first report of the Special Joint Committee on the National Capital Region, presented to the House on Friday, July 18, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,853, 2,249, 2,341, 2,434, 2,545, 2,586, 2,690, 2,691, 2,768, 2,786, 2,830, 2,837, 2,848, 2,849, 2,850, 2,874, 2,879 and 2,907.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,409 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 2,395 and 2,910?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
7810

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Since the inception of the Rural and Native Housing Programme (a) what has been the total budget (b) how much was spent for new construction in each province under the (i) rural component (ii) native component?
2.	(a) How much has been allocated for the Programme in the 1975 budget (b) how much to each province?
3.	What amount was expended in each province in 1974-75 under the residential rehabilitation aspect of the Programme?
4.	What amount has been allocated to Newfoundland during the current fiscal year for the residential rehabilitation component of the Programme?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. (a) In 1974, the allocation for Rural and Native Housing in the Capital Budget of CMHC was $62.3 million, (b) See Table 1 following. Data are not available to enable a differentiation to be made between the Rural and the Native component.
2.	(a) CMHC, for 1975, initially allocated $49.2 million for loans and $8.9 million for grants for the Rural and Native Housing Program, (b) Funds for programs under the National Housing Act are also allocated provincially, for the purposes of internal guidance and control subject, in certain cases, to formal agreements with provincial agencies. Such allocations are not published, since fluctuations in activity arising from changing demands for funds, among programs and provinces, requires that they be flexible.
3.	See Table 2 following for loans approved in total for Residential Rehabilitation. Note: The fiscal year of CMHC is the calendar year.
4.	See 2(b) above.
Table 1.
New Housing Approved Under the NHA W Rural Areas*2), by Province, 1974
Province	Number	Number	Number of Hostel	of Loans	of Units	Beds	$000Newfoundland	539	539	6,101Prince Edward Island	39	85	-	1,622Nova Scotia	256	936	119	18,507New Brunswick	86	126	-	2,444Quebec	373	393	14	7,914Ontario	213	413	157	11,489Manitoba	12	107	26	2,794Saskatchewan	41	271	-	3,949Alberta	8	8	-	193British Columbia	151	343	-	8,765Yukon	1	10	-	378Northwest Territories	-	-	-	75<3>Canada	1.719	3,231	316	64,231

Includes Homeownership and Rental (Section 58), Low Rental (Section 15), Non-Profit (Section 15.1), Assisted Homeownership (Section 34.15), Public Housing (Section 43), Federal-Provincial Housing for Sale (Section 40), Indians on Reserves (Section 59).
O) Excludes incorporated cities, towns and villages, and the fringe rural municipalities of metropolitan areas and urban agglomerations.
O) Increase in a loan approved initially in an earlier year.
Table 2.
Grants Approved for Emergency Repairs, NHA Part V, 1974
Provinces and Territories Amount $000
Newfoundland	300
Prince Edward Island	10
Nova Scotia	72
New Brunswick	195
Quebec	850
Ontario	322
Manitoba	300
Saskatchewan	-
Alberta	250
British Columbia	300
Northwest Territories	200
Yukon Territory	153
Canada	2,952


Mr. Herbert: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,356, for what reason is the Department of Public Works unable to provide a quick response capability?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: The
decision respecting the location, organizationally, of Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. was based on the judgement that a quick response capability was required within the Department of National Defence. The decision did not imply that the Department of Public Works was unable to provide a quick response capability, but reflected a considered judgment at the time that the objectives of the Department of National Defence would be more effectively met through organizational integration.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,273, for what reason (a) is information not available on the exact number of military-age French civilians making application to come to Canada rather than complete compulsory two-year military service in France (b) are statistics not available for the Province of Quebec (c) is information not available on the number of applications (i) pending (ii) refused?
2.	With reference to the answer to (a) Part 3(a) which states "Nine of the 37 are employed by the Government" and the listing shows 10, what is the correct number and where is each employed (b) Part 2 which states 10 were resident in the Province of New Brunswick, yet the breakdown shows 9, what is the correct number and where are they located (c) Part 2 which states that 22 are resident in the Province of
July 22, 1975

Ontario, yet the breakdown shows 23, what is the correct number and where are they employed?
3.	By department, what is the cost for (a) salaries (b) allowances (c) unemployment insurance (d) travelling expenses in respect of French civilians employed by the government under the France-Canada agreement since the inception of the plan to date?
4.	Since the inception of the France-Canada agreement, how many French civilians in Canada have drawn or are drawing unemployment insurance benefits and, in each case (a) where are they located (b) what is the period of unemployment?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. (a) Information is not available because applications from French civilians to participate in this programme are not made to the Canadian Government. Would-be employers contact the appropriate French agency which in turn submits a list of civilians with the necessary qualifications and who wish to come to Canada. (There are approximately 100 participating countries.) (b) The answer to Question 1,273 was submitted on the basis of information provided by the Embassy in France. It is understood that about 50 French civilians will arrive in Quebec in 1975.
2.	(a) The correct answer is nine. The Economic Council of Canada (one civilian) was listed twice in error, (b) There are 10 civilians in New Brunswick as listed in the answer to Question 1,273: 3a: 1; 3b: 5; 4a: 2; 4c: 2; for a total of 10. (c) The exact number is 22 (for the same reason as indicated in 2(a) above).
In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 3. (a) Salaries, $171,901.; (b) Allowances,
Order Paper Questions
$41,248.; (c) Unemployment Insurance, nil; (d) Travelling Expenses, $22,200.
In so far as other departments are concerned: 3. (a to d) The information is not available.
In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 4. The Commission does not maintain such statistics.


Mr. Rynard: For each year 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974, what amount was paid to members of the legal profession in the Constituency of Simcoe North by the (a) Department of Justice (b) Department of National Health and Welfare (i) Health Protection Programme (ii) Food and Drug Programme (c) Veterans Land Act Administration (d) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (e) Solicitor General and, in each case, what was the name and address of the lawyer?


John Mercer Reid: This answer is in the form of a series of columns. I wonder if it would be permissible to append it as if it had been read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above answer follows.]


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Departmant of Justice and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, (a) None; (b), (c), (d) and (e), see list following:
		1971	1972	1973	1974
jartment of Health and Welfare					
Health Protection Programme					
Bingham, W. G.	(Orillia)	* 2,000.00	$ 1,632.35	$ 3,177.00	* 7,850.65Cleary, T. P.	(Barrie)	Nil	Nil	Nil	421.00Clegg, George	(Barrie)	NU	Nil	970.00	900.00Elliott, A. R.	(Barrie)	Nil	Nil	Nil	3,095.00Haig, D. C.	(Midland)	1,665.90	760.00	5,268.20	8,377.50Kendall, E. B.	(Midland)	176.10	Nil	Nil	NilMyers, E. J.	(Barrie)	Nil	371.50	9,286.00	6,511.60Owen, B. A.	(Barrie)	4,136.42	5,513.33	436.62	6,872.72Food and Drug programme	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nilerans Land Act Administration	Moorby, J. W.	(Barrie)	820.00	Nil	Nil	NilWilson, Graham	& Co.	(Barrie)	2,674.00	5,961.00	3,963.00	10,178.00Clegg, George	(Orillia)	997.85	Nil	2,845.00	13,561.59Owen, Bruce A.	(Barrie)	7,456.00	4,805.00	287.00	824.00Cowen & Cowan	(Barrie)	1,454.00	92.00	Nil	NU
(d) CMHC retained the lawyers listed below to handle mortgage documentation for loans approved in 1971 to 1974 in the Eastern part of Simcoe County. (Townships of Adjala, Essa, Flos, Innisfil, Matche-dash, Medonte, Orillia, Oro, Tay, Tecumseth, Tiny, Tosorontio, Vespra, West Gwillimbury.)
1972-
1974 R. Noel Bates-Barrie C. L. Wilson-Barrie E. B. Kendall-Midland W. Griffith Bingham-Orillia Norman L. Booth-Orillia
29669-11V2

July 22, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Legal fees in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loans are paid by the borrowers, and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers.
The following lawyers were retained to handle legal actions from 1971 to 1974 for loans approved in the Eastern part of Simcoe County.
1971-1974 D. J. Sugg, Barrie
Where actions are settled prior to trial, the costs are paid by the borrower and CMHC has no records of the amounts.
The basic geographical units for the compilation of CMHC data are the municipality and county, and not Federal electoral constituencies. The date are governed by individual loans approved under the various sections of the National Housing Act, and not by the places of business of those who provide professional services.
1971	1972	1973	1974(e) Solicitor General	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the wording of all directives that have been issued by the customer departments or by the Department of Supply and Services in respect of the use of non-toxic or low-level-toxicity bilge cleaners in ships operated by the government?
2.	Is there any policy governing the use of non-flammable or low-level-flammability bilge cleaners in ships operated by the government and, if so, what is it?
3.	Does the government have any directives, orders or regulations that would have the effect of requiring foreign and Canadian ships operating in Canadian territorial waters to use only low-level or non-toxic bilge cleaners and, if so, what is the policy and what is the date of its promulgation?
4.	What is the present availability to commercial vessels of pump-out and/or containment facilities on-shore in the various harbours administered by the government for the containment or holding of bilge waste?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the ministry of Transport is concerned: 1. No written directives on the use of bilge cleaners have been issued to Canadian Coast Guard ships other than by memoranda saying that the amount to be used should be limited to the minimum and bilges should normally be cleaned with hot water and high pressure steam.
2.	The policy is to consider the use of bilge cleaners as coming under the "Steamship Machinery Construction Regulations" which regulate the quantity and manner of stowage of fuel onboard ships.
3.	There are no regulations that specifically refer to toxic bilge cleaners. However, should a cleaner contain a toxic substance which is included in the list of substances in the "Pollutant Substances Regulations", its discharge into the water would be prohibited. The date of proclamation of the "Pollutant Substances Regulations" was February 27, 1973, and notice of this appeared in the Canada Gazette Part II, Volume 107, No. 5.
4.	None at the present time, however, an interdepartmental committee has been formed to study the possibilities of installing containment facilities at several ports.
In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned: 1. The Department has no specific directives at present which deal with* the levels of toxicity acceptable

in bilge cleaners. However, analyses of selected substances including bilge cleaners are carried out to establish toxicity levels, and recommendations and guidelines based on these analyses and other relevant data are developed.
2,	3 and 4. To be answered elsewhere.
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. There are no directives in D.P.W. for non-toxic or low-level-toxicity bilge cleaners.
2.	There is no policy, but when required, the practice is to purchase non-flammable or low-level flammability bilge cleaners.
3.	D.P.W. has no jurisdiction over vessels not owned by the department.
4.	D.P.W. does not administer harbours for pumpout facilities.
In so far as other departments are concerned: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Not applicable.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when speaking in Toronto on April 18, 1975, state "We can all read that the bottom 20 per cent of Canadian families receive less than 6 per cent of family income whereas the highest one-fifth receive 39 per cent and, if so (a) where were such figures obtained (b) what year do they cover (c) can they be reconciled to Tables B and F of the Department of National Revenue's preliminary taxation statistics for 1973 and, if so, in what way?
2.	What is the breakdown of the bottom 20% figures with respect to (a) occupation (b) marital status and what portion of such families have (i) one (ii) two (iii) three (iv) four members and over?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. Yes. (a) The figures were obtained from Statistics Canada Publication "Income Distribution by Size in Canada 1972." Catalogue 13-207 Annual, Table 53, page 79. (b) 1972. (c) The statistics cannot be reconciled with National Revenue's statistics. Taxation statistics show the incomes of separate tax filers. The Statistic Canada figures refers to family incomes, that is, the total income of all family
July 22, 1975

members. In 1973, approximately two-thirds of families had two or more family members in receipt of income.
2.	(a) There is no information available on the occupations of family heads in the bottom 20 per cent, but only on the employment status. The employment status of heads of families in the lowest 20 per cent was: Employee, 27.7 per cent. Employer or Own Account Worker, 19.9 per cent. Not in the Labour Force, 52.4 per cent, (b) Information is not available on the marital status of the family head, but data are available on the composition of these families. Some 73.3 per cent of these families were headed by married couples. The remaining 26.7 per cent of families were of other types. The majority of these would be families headed by women who would probably be widowed, divorced, or separated. The size of families was as follows: Two persons, 51.0 per cent; Three persons, 18.4 per cent; Four persons, 13.6 per cent; Five or more persons, 17 0 per cent.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	What is the latest estimate of the total cost of the 1976 OlvmDic Games?
2.	Of the total cost, how much will come directly or indirectly from the government?
3.	What is the total federal budget for direct financial assistance to Canada's Olympic athletes?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the President of Treasury Board as follows: 1. The federal government does not have access to all of the information necessary to allow a response to this question. This information should be obtained from the Organizing Committee (C.O.J.O.).
2.	The total federal involvement in the staging of the 1976 Olympic Games is currently estimated at approximately $130 millions.
3.	The current projection by the Department of National Health and Welfare of direct financial assistance to Canada's Olympic athletes in 1975-76 is $650,000.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many times has the government raised rates on the St. Lawrence Seaway system since 1959?
2.	How many times were rail rates from Atlantic Canada inland raised since 1959?
3.	What is the policy for increases in rail rates, if any?
4.	What is the policy for rate increases for water facilities such as the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Jean Marchand: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. There have been no increases in the Montreal-Lake Ontario Section of the Seaway. Tolls on the Welland Canal were suspended in 1962. A lockage fee, phased in over five years, was introduced on this canal in 1967.
Order Paper Questions
The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 2. During the period January 1, 1959 to June 11, 1975 inclusive, rail rates from Atlantic Canada inland were raised as follows, under categories indicated: (a) Normal class and commodity rates, eight times, (b) Truck and water competitive rates 11 times, (c) Agreed Charges, six times.
3.	The railways raised freight rates in relation to increased operating costs and statutory requirements providing that all freight rates must be compensatory for services provided.
4.	In so far as the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is concerned, tolls are levied in accordance with an agreement with United States. The Authority and the Government of Canada have endorsed the policy that tolls should be sufficient to maintain and operate the Seaway while amortizing its debt with interest over a period of 50 years. This policy is presently under review.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister at any time suggest or propose to anyone whatsoever that a swimming pool be built at public expense by the National Capital Commission at his official residence, 24 Sussex Drive?
2.	Did the Prime Minister or anyone acting on his behalf ever discuss the subject of a pool with the Chairman or anyone connected with the National Capital Commission and, if so (a) on what date (b) what are the details of such discussions?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Prime Minister's Office and the National Capital Commission as follows: 1. The question of construction of the pool at public expense was raised, but it was considered preferable to accept the offer of anonymous donors.
2. Yes. (a) November 13, 1975. (b) Discussion with the Prime Minister dealt with Commission's responsibility for exterior design of buildings constructed on federal property in the National Capital Region and with the landscaping of the official residence, 24 Sussex Drive.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What total amounts in grants to municipalities in Saskatchewan for sewage and water installations were granted in (a) 1971-72 (b) 1973-74 (c) first six months of 1975?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: The total amounts of grants by DREE to municipalitis in Saskatchewan for sewage and water installations are as follows: (1) under the Agricultural Service Centres Agreement: calendar years 1971-72, $792.09; calendar years 1973-74, $1,293,030.60; first six months of 1975, $941,901.66. (2) in Meadow Lake Special Area: calendar years 1971-72, $28,196.93; calendar years 1973-74, $47,226.61; first six months of 1975, $17,708.80.

July 22, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Sewage Treatment Projects Approved Under the NHA, Section 51, Saskatchewan 1971-May 1975
Number of	Amount	Federal ForgivenessYear	Loans	(?000)/(l,000S)	(*<X)0)/(l,00OS)1971	6	-332 W	1,3761972	6	-20 <*>	5511973	15	1,839	831974	15	2,067	941975 January-May	2	19	8
WData for 1971-74 are net; data for 1975 are gross.
(?) Reduction in loans initially approved in an earlier year.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Canadian Film Development Corporation invested funds in the film "Sweet Movie" and, if so (a) is such investment approximately $115,000 in public funds (b) what are the names and job designations of all persons involved in deciding that the Corporation should become involved in this matter?
2.	Does this film contain approximately eight on-camera acts of vomiting, five of urination and four of defecation?
3.	What are all the reasons that a decision was made to invest public funds in a film of this kind?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows; 1. Yes. (a) The Corporation does not reveal the amount of its investments in individual productions, (b) The CFDC Board Members, as follows: Mrs. Doris Anderson, Mr. Jean-Guy Fredette, Mr. Gratien Gelinas, also Chairman of the CFDC, Mrs. Doris Shadbolt, Mr. David Silcox, Mr. Sydney Newman, ex officio member.
2.	No, but it contains some such scenes.
3.	The Corporation's agreement to invest was based on the project as a whole taking into consideration every element of the application, such as; (i) Reputation of the director, Dusan Makavejev, (ii) The Producers, (iii) Canadian Content, (iv) The Script.


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 Consumer and Corporate Affairs for duties relating primarily to the implementation and administration of (i) Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code (ii) Bill C-60, An Act respecting bankruptcy and insolvency?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the original employment or commencement of contract?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. (a) (i) and (ii) Nil. (b) (i) and (ii) Nil. (i) C-2 Although no persons have been hired with the responsibility for the implementation and administration of Bill C-2, various officers have been involved in the preparation of implementation plans for the introduction of these provisions. In total, approximately one man-year

has been devoted to the development of these plans, (ii) C-60 Although public servants and some outside experts hired under contract have worked on the development of the policies reflected in the proposed Bankruptcy Act, 1975 (Bill C-60), there have not been any persons hired by the Public Service Commission or under contract by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to carry out duties related primarily to the implementation and administration of that Bill.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: Did the government grant $50,000 to the Association Canadienne des educateurs de langue frangaise for the printing of material and transportation costs in relation to their annual conference to be held in Chicoutimi, August 10 to 17, 1975 and, if so, for what reason is such material not available in the English language?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes: $30,000 to pay part of the travelling expenses for Francophone delegates from provinces other than Quebec, and $20,000 to cover part of the cost of organizing the project "Biennale de la francophonie canadienne" in Chicoutimi in August. The Association canadienne des educateurs de langue frangaise (ACELF) is a national organization aimed solely at French-speaking Canadians. All pertinent documentation is therefore printed in French only, unless the organization also wishes to address Anglophones. Texts and documents are then printed in both official languages.


Mr. Forrestall: How much money has the Food Prices Review Board saved for consumers resident in the Constituency of Dartmouth-Halifax East, if any?


André Ouellet: The Food Prices Review Board was established under the Inquiries Act to study the causes of food price increases and to make reports to the public on its findings. The F.P.R.B. has not been given authority by Parliament to lower food prices and thus to effect savings to consumers directly. However, in the course of its work, it has assisted consumers indirectly by recommending ways in which consumers could save money when purchasing food: it has also made recommendations to the Government and industry that have resulted in lower prices than would otherwise have occurred. For example, in its report "What Price Nutrition" the Board suggested how Canadian consumers could save up to one-third on their food expenses and at the same time improve their nutritional level.
July 22, 1975


PUBLIC SERVICE COMPETITIONS OPEN TO MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Can a member of the Canadian Armed Forces transferred with his family out of the Atlantic Region of Canada on a temporary or other basis, be permitted to apply for jobs within the Public Service in closed competitions that are offered in the Atlantic Provinces and, if so, under what circumstances?
2.	Is it possible for such persons to apply for such jobs that are closed to residents of the Atlantic Provinces without being forced to resign from the Canadian Armed Forces?
3.	Can a member of the Canadian Armed Forces once resigned, compete in closed competitions offered by the Public Service in Atlantic Canada and, if so, under what circumstances?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Yes. For the purposes of being eligible to enter competitions, members of the Armed Forces are deemed to be employed in the Public Service. However, the Public Service Employment Act requires that, before a closed competition is conducted, the area of competition shall be determined in terms of the part, if any, of the Public Service and the occupational group and level of positions, if any, in which prospective candidates must be employed in order to be eligible for appointment. Therefore a member of the Armed Forces not stationed in the Atlantic Provinces would be eligible to enter closed competitions offered in the Atlantic Provinces, where the competitions have been advertised as open to all employees of the Public Service, employed within geographical limits set, either on a nation-wide basis or so as to include the area in which the member is serving.
2.	Eligibility for appointment, in the case of closed competitions, is normally determined by the positions, or part of the Public Service, in which persons in the Public Service are employed, rather than by the area in which they reside. Therefore, a member of the Armed Forces must continue to retain his status as a serving member and be stationed within the geographical limits prescribed in the area of competition in order to be eligible to compete in a closed competition.
3.	No. A serving member who resigns from the Canadian Armed Forces is ineligible to compete in any closed competition in the Public Service as of the date on which he ceases to be a member of the Armed Forces.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What level of assistance is presently available to libraries across Canada such as the Dartmouth Regional Library?
2.	What changes are contemplated, if any?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the National Librarian as follows: 1. The National Library does not provide financial assistance to libraries.
Order Paper Questions 2. Not applicable.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many beds were there in the Veterans Hospital in Victoria, British Columbia on the day of the transfer of the Hospital to the Province of British Columbia (a) how many were occupied (b) for what type of care, i.e. convalescent, acute or extended?
2.	Since that time, by month, how many veterans (a) occupied beds in the building at the beginning of each month and for what type of care (b) were admitted for treatment to the building and for what type of care (c) were occupying beds in the other Jubilee Hospital building and for what type of care (d) were admitted to the'Jubilee Hospital building and for what type of care (e) were occupying beds in other hospitals in British Columbia under the "guaranteed beds" part of the federal-provincial agreement (i) for what type of care (ii) at which hospitals (f) were admitted for treatment to other hospitals in British Columbia under the "guaranteed beds" agreement (i) for what type of care (ii) at which hospitals?
3.	How many beds guaranteed to veterans under the transfer agreement were not occupied at any given time and for how long (a) in the Jubilee Hospital complex (b) elsewhere in British Columbia?
4.	How many veterans are now waiting for admission to hospitals covered by the agreement (a) for what type of care (b) at which hospitals?
5.	Of the guaranteed number of beds for veterans in the Memorial Pavilion, how many as of July 1, 1975, are occupied by (a) veterans (b) non-veterans?
6.	How many of the guaranteed beds are considered to be elsewhere?
7.	What is the charge per day to the veteran when he is obliged to occupy a bed elsewhere than in the Memorial Pavilion and, if it varies from hospital to hospital or nursing home to nursing home, what are the rates of each?
8.	When calculating "bed space available" under the federal-provincial agreement covering the Veterans Hospital in Victoria, what hospitals in British Columbia are included aside from the Jubilee?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 215: (a) 160, (b) Active Care, 55; Chronic Care, 42; Domiciliary Care, 63.	[DOT]
(a)	Active Care	Chronic Care	Domiciliary Care	TotalSeptember 1974	36	40	63	139October 1974	37	45	59	141November 1974	30	45	58	133December 1974	32	43	59	134January 1975	28	47	55	130February 1975	35	49	60	144March 1975	29	52	59	140April 1975	20	48	57	125May 1975	24	47	58	129June 1975	27	46	58	131(b)	Active Care	Chronic Care	Domiciliary Care	TotalSeptember 1974	52	6	2	60October 1974	53	2	6	61November 1974	44	3	4	51December 1974	41	7	1	49January 1975	69	6	5	80February 1975	44	5	1	50March 1975	40	2	2	44April 1975	48	3	5	56May 1975	46	1	3	50June 1975	43	3	3	49
July 22, 1975
Order Paper Questions
(0	Active Care	Chronic Domiciliary Care Care	TotalJanuary 1975	8	- -	8February 1975	8	- -	8March 1975	9	- -	9April 1975	10	- -	10May 1975	7	- -	7June 1975	8	-	8
Note: Statistics were not recorded prior to January 1975.
(d)	Separate statistics for the Jubilee Hospital were not kept.
(e)	and (f) None. (The "guaranteed beds" agreement applies only
to the Memorial Pavilion and the Jubilee Hospital.)
3.	(a) and (b) Varies on a day to day basis. See answer for 2(a).
4.	(a) Domiciliary Care, 74; Extended Care, 10; (b) Memorial Pavilion.
5.	(a) 139, (b) 21.
6.	None.
7.	No charge for entitled veterans.
8.	None.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Did the Canadian Film Development Corporation fund the film "Sweet Movie" as reported in Macleans magazine?
2.	Were similar movies funded by the CFDC?
3.	What criteria were used in selecting the films to be supported?
4.	Does the government consider that financial support for pornographic movies is a proper use of public money?
5.	Will the National Film Board have this movie available to its libraries across Canada and, if not, for what reason?
6.	What was the total amount expended by the CFDC on film subsidies?


James Hugh Faulkner: In
reply to Parts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	The members and the staff of the Corporation take into consideration the scenario of the proposed film, the previous experience of the proposed producer and director, the cast, the budget, the distribution arrangements and other financial details before it decides to invest in any project which is proposed to it.
4.	No.
5.	No. This is a private sector production.
6.	The total amount of subsidies expended by the CFDC since its inception up to March 31, 1975 (i.e. over a period of seven years) is $17,144,656.


Mr. Forrestall: What ports in Eastern Canada will suffer and to what extent by the $6 million reduction in non-budgetary expenditures by the National Harbours Board?


Jean Marchand: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows: The reduction is being considered within the total requirements for transportation purposes, and no final recommendation has been made to the Minister of Transport at this time.


Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many applications were before the Entitlement Board of the Canadian Pension Commission as of June 1, 1974 and June 1, 1975?
2.	Has the government considered any remedies to speed up help to these veterans?


John Mercer Reid: 1. As of July 1, 1974 there were 414 claims awaiting hearing by an Entitlement Board. As of June 1, 1975 the number was 706. In addition, 3,042 claims were in various stages of preparation for a hearing as of July 1, 1974 and 3,730 as of June 1, 1975. This includes claims where the Statement of Case is held by the applicant or his counsel and for which the notice of readiness to proceed with the hearing has not yet been received by the Canadian Pension Commission.
2. Yes.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Marshall: In each year 1968 to date, how many public servants did each department have working in the Province of Newfoundland?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On May 22 I asked question No. 2,535. It is a fairly simple question relating to ministerial conflicts of interest and it would be entirely within the knowledge of a single member of the government to answer, namely, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I am quite sure an answer could be whipped up in 30 seconds. I do not know why it has not been answered, and I draw it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


July 22, 1975



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 21, 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. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, last evening before the House rose I had been referring to the social and economic condition of our country, a condition brought on by the misrule of the present government which operates under the guise of liberalism. I referred to certain newspaper articles and suggested that the Canadian people, especially those of us who must bear the cost of this misrule, know that Canada is in deep trouble and virtually leaderless.
What is the cause of this, Mr. Speaker? We could go back almost a decade and point to government arrogance, to government abuse of power, to procrastination, especially to the government's misuse of its present majority, to waste of taxpayers' money, poor judgment and chronic indecision. This morning I heard a radio commentator say that the hand is writing on the wall. That reminds me of an old hymn my grandmother used to sing. It is not in the hymn books any more, but it speaks of a story many centuries old, the story of Belshazzar's feast, during which a hand appeared and wrote on the wall and foretold the doom of his government. It goes like this;
At the feast of Belshazzar,
And a thousand of his Lords,
How they drank of golden vessels,
As the book of truth records.
In the night as they revelled,
In the lordly palace hall,
They were seized with consternation,
By the hand upon the wall.
How true it is today. The government is a perfect example of that to which the hymn refers, the hymn which my Scottish grandmother used to sing almost a century ago. The hand is writing on the wall for the government because, as the Scriptures say, they were weighed in the balance and found wanting. The Medes and the Persians are at the gates. I shall make no more metaphors; this will be the last. But the modern Medes and Persians are inflation and unemployment.
We have the spectacle before us of a government which imposes a ten cents a gallon surtax on gasoline and, in the same stroke of the pen, removes the tax from wine. That is one for the books. The government wants to tax the daylights out of those who need gasoline to make a living, and says to them, "Drink more wine and you won't feel the pain." I really don't know whether the minister was thinking about the true connoisseur when he removed the tax on wine, or if he was trying to ease the lot of the poor who feel the pinch of inflation. I think someone is greasing the skids under the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). He
Excise Tax Act
accepted poor advice when he lumped these two measures in one bill. Imagine including wine and gasoline in one bill! One cannot help comparing what has been done to wine with what has been done to gasoline.
I should hate to see the minister ridden out of the House by his colleagues, because that will be the effect of this bill. Personally, I shall hate to see him go. I have come to enjoy looking at his pleasant face across the floor and having the occasional exchange of banter and repartee. The minister is an interesting man and a rather pleasant sort; he is a good Canadian, too. But he was been badly misled. I think someone in his department was putting him on by drafting a bill like C-66 and asking him to put his stamp of approval on it.
Reading this bill we come across another anomaly, proposed section 17 on page 5. The proposed section reads:
Thermal insulation materials designed exclusively for insulation of buildings; storm doors and storm windows for buildings; articles and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture or production thereof.
I was in the building materials and lumber business for 25 years, and in my opinion this proposed section will invite arbitrary interpretation by bureaucratic bunglers as to what actually constitutes insulating materials. Lumber is an insulating material, as is paper, glass, concrete, brick, stone and scores of other materials. They are, to a varied degree, insulators. To carry this argument further, the whole purpose of a building is to insulate the occupants and appurtenances from the weather. Every single material or substance can, in some instances, be considered as an insulating material. Why did not the drafters of this monstrous document simply say that all building materials are hereafter exempt from federal taxes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Every speaker, excepting the two or three government supporters who took part in this debate, made the point I have just made. I can suggest a number of reasons why federal taxes should be taken off building materials completely and immediately. The main reason, of course, is the slump in housing starts in Canada. The slump has come exactly when thousands of new dwelling units are desperately needed. At the same time, the minister of state responsible for housing says that there is no way he can meet his own projections this year for housing starts. His is a sad case. If the federal government is truly concerned about housing starts, it should take the reasonable and logical step of taking the tax off building materials and then appoint a minister of housing who can get the show on the road.
Another reason for removing the tax on building materials is that the United States market for Canadian lumber is thinning because of a decline of housing starts in that country. A number of lumber companies in British Columbia have closed owing to a slump in the market. This would be a good time to put that surplus lumber to work. It could be used for the building of homes for Canadians. We should do everything we can to accomplish that end. Including clauses like proposed section 17 in tax bills is not the way to do it, Mr. Speaker. We do not need any more of that hard to interpret gobbledygook on the statute books. There is too much of it already and it accomplishes no good purpose.
7818

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
Also, I should have to see the finance minister railroaded out of the House by his colleagues because he has become master of the one-liner since assuming his present cabinet responsibilities. Some of his lines are real gems. Take, for instance, his statement in the budget speech a few days ago. He said the government found it necessary to steer a narrow course between inflation and unemployment. He should get a prize for that one. What he really meant was that the government was threading its way among the multitude of problems facing the country and so far they have managed to avoid making contact with any of the problems.
I have read some startling accounts in the press lately, and again today, about the incredible mismanagement of Air Canada. Although I share the concern of the average Canadian about this appalling state of affairs, I am not surprised. The former Auditor General, Maxwell Henderson, warned us for years that the country was being as badly managed as Air Canada and other Crown corporations. The same crowd is responsible for fiscal and management policies. No wonder the national budget for the present fiscal year is close to $30 billion. It could be much higher before the year is out. No wonder the government is scratching the bottom of the barrel, trying to find new sources of revenue. Thus, of course, the ten-cent gasoline tax. They are invading a provincial field, although there is nothing in Canadian law to prevent their so doing.
A couple of weeks ago some of the spokesmen in the higher echelons of the Liberal Party said that if Ontario does not like the ten-cent additional gasoline tax being levied at the pumps, why do they not take off the provincial tax? What colossal nerve and affrontery! Ontario has a 19-cent a gallon gasoline tax. This revenue is used to build and maintain highways. They have been doing a good job. The federal government has a lot of nerve asking the Ontario government to vacate in part a field which they have historically held, in order to make room for this illegitimate affrontery to raise more revenue for the Trudeau government. We are in that position today.
The present government has got itself boxed in. That is the reason for levying this tax. It cannot restrain itself now because the habit of spending recklessly has become too deeply entrenched. It is far easier to get into a bad habit than to kick one. I do not believe this government is interested in kicking its habit of overspending. Liberal cabinet ministers have had access to the public purse for too long to give up this largesse. In fact, it is obvious they want more money to spend on their personal programs and projects. When they are called upon to solve serious problems, their first thought is to spend their way out of them. When they find themselves short of cash, they send their friendly Minister of Finance on a foraging expedition. In this bill we find him poaching in the traditional domain of the provinces. We find him gouging taxes from the retail sale of gasoline which traditionally have been left to the provinces for the construction and maintenance of roads and highways.
The minister got off another good one-liner when the Premier of Ontario objected to the imposition of the tencent a gallon increase in the surtax. The minister suggested that if the premier thought the price of gasoline was too

high, he could drop the 19-cent a gallon Ontario tax on gasoline. I can see the premier setting up the province for another federal kill. If Premier Davis were to drop the 19-cent tax, the finance minister and his cronies would jump in like a flock of vultures, saying that if the province did not want the 19 cents, the federal government would take it.
It looks as though there will be another injustice perpetrated on the Canadian taxpayers in connection with this legislation. That is on the question of rebates returned by the government to those who have purchased and burned gasoline in the course of earning their livelihood and in necessary travel to and from their jobs. At first it was reported that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bas-ford) had stated that the ten cents a gallon rebate would not be taxable. Now that has been contradicted by his department and they say that the rebate will be taxed. If this is so, it is a glaring, rank injustice. I do not believe that ruling would be upheld in a court of law. This would be absolute theft on the part of the government theft from the taxpayers.
First, the money that he or she earned as income in order to buy gasoline is taxed. Then they take some of it to buy a tank of gasoline to go to work and pay the ten-cent per gallon tax, which then is rebated to them at a later date in full. If the government taxes that rebate, it will be double taxation. Moreover, it will be taxation of amounts that have nothing to do with income. How crazy can the government get? This legislation is shaky enough without compounding it with such nonsense. I say to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of National Revenue, make a non-taxing return of the gasoline tax to the industrial and workaday users. Do that and you will be in the better books of the Canadian taxpayers, which you are not at the present time.
The Minister of Finance has said he is taxing gasoline users ten cents per gallon, plus the wellhead crude oil tax, and is doing this for revenue purposes. I wonder for what specific purposes. The Trudeau record under the guise of liberalism is a sorry mess. The minister says, of course, that the first purpose is to subsidize the extra cost of gasoline and oil in the eastern part of our country, but he also stated in his speech on July 9 that this item will bolster the consolidated revenue fund. That is why I ask the question that this House and all of Canada is asking: For what will the $500 million a year be used?
Some questions immediately arise. Will this be used to finance more give away programs? Will it be used to finance CIDA's colossal expenditures in foreign countries? I am not the red-necked bigot that a Liberal would try to label me. Some of these projects are legitimate for our purpose of being a world nation trying to help our brothers, but a good share of it is nothing but extravagance and wasted money. Will this revenue be used to finance the self-indulgent extravagances of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? No answer there. Will it be used to finance deficits created by bad deals and judgments such as Microsystems, not far from Ottawa, which in the name of liberalism was given a $30 million grant? That was a big one, Mr. Speaker. That is another failure of "Trudeaucracy".
July 22, 1975

There is an example of a smaller loss in my constituency. Even though it is small, prorated it is as important as the $30 million poured down the drain just outside this city. Just before the 1972 election, one of the candidates for the Liberal nomination announced they had made a grant to a lathe mill in Northbrook of over $6,000, supposedly to train machine operators. A month after the grant was announced, the firm went out of business and no operators were trained or needed. The site is on the outskirts of the village along Highway 41 and is a public nuisance and eyesore, with its huge pile of edgings and dilapidated buildings with junk piled around.
That is all that is left of another Liberal grant. Moreover, it is a regional fire hazard. The government will be hearing more about this from me because the mess has to be cleaned up; it is detrimental to our countryside. We are trying to attract tourists. They do not come here to seek junk, edging piles and fire hazards. Government spending is a bottomless pit to which it consigns the taxpayers' earnings.
As the finance minister steers his narrow course between inflation and unemployment, I hope he will take the trouble to look to the right and to the left, up and down, and forward and backward. If he will just do that, he will see where he is going. We are drifting along in so many directions at this time that I am surprised the finance minister would even suggest that this sort of meandering can be described as steering a narrow course. It is more like the narrow course the legendary bull charted through the china shop. Like the china shop, the country is in a shamble, and it would appear that the worst is yet to come. If the government is getting so short of funds and sources of additional revenue as to transgress into provincial tax preserves, then we must be in serious economic straits indeed; much worse, I would suspect, than the finance minister has told us.
I must also join my hon. friends in protesting the manner in which the Minister of Finance imposed this increase in the excise tax-by an announcement in the middle of a speech in the House. This is taxation by fiat and is further evidence that the government has no ethics about tabling tax legislation before the fact; it has found it is more convenient and expeditious to table legislation after the tax has been imposed and after it has come into force. This is contrary to the rule of law and contrary to the tradition followed by all the governments which preceded the would-be dictators across the floor.
What are some of the exemptions for which the bill provides? Section 2 refers to air travel. All non-Canadians using commercial air travel from points outside our country are excluded. But all Canadians emplaning from points within Canada will pay. The excise tax on wine has been sharply cut. All users of Canadian wine will from now on pay only 2lA cents tax per gallon, instead of 20 cents a gallon as formerly, if the alcoholic content is 7 per cent or less, and only five cents per gallon instead of 40 cents per gallon on wine with an alcohol content of more than 7 per cent.
I note, also, that the tax has been removed from insulation materials, incidentally, this measure should benefit
Excise Tax Act
all those people who buy insulating materials as a means of keeping their wine cold. Persons exempted from tax include Her Majesty in right of Canada, an exemption which extends to the Prime Minister and covers his Liberal picnic junkets around the country in armed forces' helicopters. But the working man has no exemptions whatsoever.
I wish to speak briefly as a member with three prisons in his riding, each of which has been a continuing source of trouble to the community and to the country. I ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) why it was considered necessary or expedient to cut back the proposed prison construction program touted for so long. If the revenue to be raised by this tax was to be used to build new prisons or to modernize old prisons, I might be inclined to accept it with some grace. However, as has already been pointed out by many of my hon. friends, the money to be collected is to go into general revenues; it will not be used to build roads or prisons or to create jobs or fight inflation. In fact, on the contrary, it will only serve to feed the fires of inflation.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) suggested last week that we in the official opposition would be pleased to lend the services of our esteemed economic critic, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) to help the Minister of Finance. Our economic critic could remind him of what he has said in the past concerning the state of our economic health. He could remind him how wide of the mark he has been with his predictions and projections. He might even be able to advise him how to get out of the mess in which his cabinet colleagues have placed him.
The minister is being roasted by his own colleagues and he will be cast aside as soon as it suits the purposes of those who constitute the real power of liberalism. I extend an invitation to the minister to come over to this side of the House when his colleagues are finished with him. He will have to start at the bottom and learn his craft, but there might be a better future for him in a party which places a higher value on service and honour than on power for the sake of power.
If the government is sincere about reducing expenditures, it could begin by withdrawing the hundreds of millions it is squandering each year on the so-called bilingualism program in the public service. That program has become a scandalous, expensive disaster and instead of promoting bilingualism it is being used to promote racism. Those of us who complain about the way in which the program has deteriorated into a scheme to recruit and promote public servants on the basis of race are called racists, but it is becoming apparent to the majority of Canadians that this is simply a smokescreen thrown up by those who hope they can obscure the truth about what is happening.
I would call attention to a headline in the Ottawa Journal of July 22, "School boards challenge Bill 22"-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, who is a very distinguished, honourable and experienced member of this House. Nevertheless, it has been made clear from the chair that members should direct themselves specifically to the principles
29669-12'/2

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
of Bill C-66. I think everyone will agree that it is not at all desirable that we should resurrect the budget debate in general. We are dealing now with the second reading of Bill C-66 and I am sure members will agree that we would be better served if we were to direct our attention exclusively to that bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I think my hon. friend is coming to the point, Your Honour. As you know, it takes a little time for some of us to get to the point, but I am sure he will do so.


Mr. Stevens:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would draw attention to the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when this bill was first introduced. It was a rambling speech, in the course of which he referred to many items in the budget in no way directly linked with Bill C-66. This precedent having been set, it is difficult to rule any speech out of order at this point. The hon. member who has the floor certainly has been making some very appropriate remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank hon. members for contributing to the discussion of the procedural point. What we are looking at now is not precedent but the Standing Orders. They are quite clear: hon. members shall direct themselves specifically to the terms of the bill which is being debated. I hope all hon. members will adhere to this rule; it is a time-honoured one.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a fellow parliamentarian, I respect your judgment. However, I would draw to your attention the fact that the bill pertains to finance; it pertains to revenue. I mentioned the government's bilingualism program and the inefficiency with which it is being carried out because it has a direct bearing on expenditure, on the nation's financial affairs. This led me to refer to the protest raised by the Association of Protestant School Boards in Quebec which is asking for a ruling on the Quebec official languages act, Bill 22, on the grounds that it will constitute a hardship to some of the citizens of that province.
If hon. members care to look at today's Ottawa Journal, they will find a headline reading "Trudeau rules out Bill 22 challenge". The Prime Minister is reported as saying the federal government will not ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the Quebec law making French the province's official language. Hail, the just society!


An hon. Member:: Get back to the bill.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: However, as I say, Mr. Speaker, I respect your ruling. On the admission of both the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) and the chairman of the Public Service Commission, the commission intends to ignore the merit system in recruiting for the public service until it is satisfied there is a ratio among employees roughly equivalent to the population ratio of English and French Canadians. This practice is against federal regulations, it is against provincial regulations and it is against all the rules of decent conduct in our society. That is liberalism for you. This is the Trudeau just society.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]
At a time when we are trying to wipe out all traces of discrimination on the basis of race, creed, colour, religion or national origin, this government is promoting racism, and in the process is trying to turn the two founding cultures and races of our country into opposing camps. This is a strange method indeed for a government to promote unity in a country where people have been getting along so well for generations.
The finance minister has freely admitted that the ten cents a gallon tax to be levied on motorist and gasoline users at the retail level is to be used by the government for badly needed revenue purposes, and it is estimated this revenue will total $500 million per year. I have referred to their bad habits of the past, and these are coming home to haunt the government. There is an old French saying out of everyday human experience that certainly applies here, and it is this: "Plus qu'hier, moins que demain". In English, it means the more yesterday, the less tomorrow. In other words, the more you spent and dissipated yesterday, the less you have for tomorrow. Is that not true, Mr. Speaker?
The Trudeau government wasted and squandered so much yesterday, in the past, that the outlook for tomorrow is fraught with financial difficulties of their own making; and as I previously stated, they are weighed in the balance and found wanting.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I want first to acknowledge your ruling that the remarks of hon. members should be relevant to the bill under consideration. As Your Honour knows, Bill C-66 imposes a gasoline excise tax of ten cents a gallon on gasoline sold by refiners and importers of gasoline. The tax is not imposed on the sale of diesel fuel, aviation fuel and heating fuel. I want to observe your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and to deal with the technical administration of the proposed tax. The policy reasons behind this measure were, I think, eloquently and cogently put by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget statement and speech on moving second reading of this bill, and in the exceedingly fine speech of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).
In following the course of the debate on second reading of this bill, some hon. members have raised questions on the administrative aspects of the proposed gasoline excise tax and I hope they would be interested in some enlightenment on the subject this afternoon. Notwithstanding that this tax is expected to generate some $350 million in the remaining portion of this fiscal year, the cost of collection of this large sum will be minimal since the 20 refiners and 10 gasoline importers affected by payment of the tax already pay sales tax to the Department of National Revenue each month in the regular course of their business. So they will only be required to make minor adjustments in their accounting system to record and remit the gasoline excise tax. This is provided for in the bill, and these 20 refiners and 10 importers will simply add the proposed gasoline tax to that remission.
Furthermore, in terms of the administration of the refund programs, even though it is expected that upwards of one million persons will be entitled to claim refunds of
July 22, 1975

gasoline tax as a relieving measure, the cost of the collection and processing of refund claims will be about 1 per cent. This is in the same range as the present administration costs of the general manufacturers sales tax that is currently in place.
The administration is being geared, on passage of the bill, to refund the tax on gasoline provided for in the bill, gasoline that is used for commercial purposes by delivery trucks, buses, taxis, construction equipment, manufacturing equipment, mining and forestry equipment, by farmers, commercial fishermen and hunters and trappers who use gasoline in the course of farming, commercial fishing, hunting and trapping activities.
Tax relief will also be provided by way of refunds to hospitals, federal and provincial government departments and agencies, as well as to persons who claim a portion of their vehicle expenses as a deduction against income tax in computing their income. Hon. members know that this will include doctors, commercial travellers, salesmen, business people using their cars in the course of their business, self-employed professional persons, manufacturers, retailers, hospitals and day-care centres when the gasoline is used in their vehicles and equipment.
Generally then, Mr. Speaker, with the bill as now proposed and reprinted by order of Your Honour, all persons who use gasoline in the course of their business or commercial activities for the purpose of earning income will be entitled to claim a refund as well as those manufacturers who are exempt from the 12 per cent federal sales tax on gas purchased for further manufacture. Also, the refund of the gasoline tax is not limited to gasoline purchased for cars, trucks and other vehicles; it will also be allowed for use in snowmobiles, tractors, lawn mowers and motor boats if the gasoline was consumed for business or for income-producing purposes.
As the House knows, originally Bill C-66 contained section 47(1)(f) providing for payment of the refund to a large group of persons and organizations not required to pay income tax on their earnings. That list, provided in the Income Tax Act, includes such bodies as municipal authorities or public bodies performing a similar function, school boards, municipal and provincial corporations, charitable organizations, non-profit organizations, charitable trusts, trade unions or labour organizations, housing corporations within the meaning of that expression as defined by the National Housing Act, and others. Without in any way reflecting on Your Honour's ruling in this instance, I would hope that at the committee stage of the bill the House would be amenable to suggestions to be made by the Minister of Finance to bring back into the bill relief from this tax for a group of non-business users of gasoline.
Dealing further with the administration of this proposed tax, employers who pay a mileage allowance to their employees for business travel will be allowed to claim a refund either on the basis of ten cents per gallon for actual gasoline expended in business travel or the employer will be permitted a factor of a fraction of a cent per mile. I propose to recommend to the governor in council on passage of the bill that a factor of five-eighths of a cent per mile be authorized for calculation by an employer who paid his employee mileage. As may be evident, the intent
Excise Tax Act
of the proposed legislation is to exempt all users of gasoline other than those who use gasoline for personal transportation or other personal use.
There will also be situations where gasoline is consumed in vehicles that are used partly for business and partly for pleasure. In situations of this kind, only that portion of gasoline which is consumed when the vehicle is being used for business purposes or for income-producing purposes will be subject to the refund.


An hon. Member:: How would you measure that?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will come to the point the hon. member has just raised in a few moments. For example, in a situation where an eligible person, say a doctor or salesman, drove an automobile 20,000 miles in a year, where only 12,000 miles or 60 per cent was on commercial business, that person would have paid a total of $125 of gasoline excise tax if he had purchased 1,250 gallons of gasoline, and he would be entitled to a gasoline refund of $75.
The hon. member has asked how we would calculate that, how we would administer it. This type of assessment, this type of judgment or this type of arrangement is already in place and made under the existing Income Tax Act where people are entitled to deduct a certain proportion of their vehicle expense for tax purposes.
I will come to the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in a moment. The hon. member for Peace River raised a question the other day with which I shall deal later. I emphasize that while no claim for refund can be paid before the bill receives royal assent, when and if it does provision will be made for large refund claims to be made on a monthly basis and reimbursement should be made within two or three weeks of receipt of the claim.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is wrong.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Peace River says that is wrong. I will come back to this again at the conclusion of my speech and show that his submission is not right. Hon. members opposite who have raised all sorts of comments in the course of the debate about administration, obviously are not the least interested in learning what the proposed administration will be. As I was suggesting, large refunds would be made on a monthly basis and reimbursement of the refund should be made within two or three weeks of receipt of the claim. Smaller refunds, it is proposed, will be filed semi-annually and processed within six weeks of receipt at the Revenue Canada data centre.


An hon. Member:: How large must they be?


Stanley Ronald Basford: My department will accept claims of $200 or more once a month. An amount of $200 represents some
32,000	miles of usage in a car burning gasoline at the rate of 16 miles per gallon. Claims of less than $200 will be accepted twice a year covering the periods January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31. Very small claims will be accepted on or after December 31, 1975.

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether the minister would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Would the minister allow a question at this time?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would prefer to answer at the end of my speech, if I might, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Fair enough.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On the basis of that, Mr. Speaker, as I say- to re-emphasize-refund claims of $200 will be received and paid monthly and those of less than $200 will be accepted twice a year. The smaller claims will be accepted on or after December 31, 1975. To give some indication of the magnitude of the claims involved, we estimate, for example, that a commercial salesman travels between
20.000	and 40,000 business miles per year, and also that a taxicab travels approximately 100,000 to 150,000 business miles per year.
Using that calculation related to a car which travels an average 16 miles to the gallon, we find that the commercial salesman would receive a refund of between $125 and $250 per year, and that the taxi driver would receive between $625 and $937.50 per year. Dealing with the exemption for eastern farmers, the average eastern farmer burns 3,000 gallons of gasoline per year on farming. His refund would be about $300 per year. The average western farmer burns
1.000	gallons of gasoline per year, which is less than his eastern counterpart because western farmers use diesel engines to a greater extent. This represents a rebate of $100. I have asked for statistics relating to fishermen and the amount of the refund anticipated for them, but because of the very diverse nature of the fishing industry it is extremely difficult to draw out what would be a meaningful average.
The method of payment of refunds that we propose to space out monthly, semi-annually and annually will, I want to reassure the hon. member for Peace River who raised this matter, in fact help stabilize the work load in the data centre where these refund claims will be handled. At the present time, the data centre is used to process income tax returns. We have a peak load at tax filing time. The high load then falls off, and the administration throughout the year of the gasoline tax refund program would stabilize employment within the data centre and solve some of our administrative problems.
Some hon. members opposite have raised the question of administration. I wish to draw it to their attention that, for example, the present program of refunds under the Income Tax Act, as an average, on a correct return requires a period of five weeks from the time of receipt of the return until payment by the Department of Supply and Services. Obviously, the processing of a rather simple form relating to the gasoline tax is a far simpler task than the assessment and processing of an income tax return; therefore, the time spent on these refunds should be considerably less than the time spent on income tax returns.
Since no refund of the gasoline excise tax is permitted for personal use, my department will not refund tax for mileage which the employer might pay his employee for travel from his home to his place of work since this is

comparable to the personal expenses of a person travelling from his home to his place of employment. Furthermore, a lawyer, medical doctor or business person using his car to drive from his home to his place of business would similarly be unable to claim refund of the gasoline tax for that travel.
It goes without saying that my department will not condone-I think this is a point that was raised by one hon. member-fraudulent claims and will consider prosecution in those instances which are uncovered by auditors during their periodic review of claimants' records. This mechanism is already in place in my department in assessing and auditing present tax returns.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the status of the gasoline excise tax refunds for purposes of the Income Tax Act. It will be recognized, of course, that a person is only entitled to claim his net cost as an expense for tax purposes. If, therefore, he charges as expense the full price of the gasoline, including the ten cents per gallon to be rebated, he must add the rebate into his declared income. If, on the other hand, he charges only his net expense, excluding the rebate, he would need to take no further steps regarding income tax in respect of the rebate when he receives it.
In view of the comments, I might add a little more in explanation of that situation. The Income Tax Act provides for two methods of computing income and expenses-the cash method and the accrual method. In brief, the cash method must be used by taxpayers whose income is derived from office or employment, including commission salesmen. Farmers and fishermen may elect to use this method or the accrual method. The income of all other businesses, including the professions, must be reported on the accrual basis.
Under the cash method, income is reported in the year it is received and expenses are deducted in the year they are paid. Consequently, an individual using this basis will be entitled to deduct the total amount paid during the year for the gasoline purchased for business purposes, and report as income the gasoline tax rebate actually received during the year. As an alternative, he may reduce the gasoline purchases by the amount of the rebate and claim only the net cost of the gasoline as an expense. For example, if his gasoline purchases amounted to $700 and he received a rebate of $100, he could either claim the $700 as an expense and report the $100 rebate as income, or claim the net amount which is $600. The over-all effect for tax purposes is the same.
Under the accrual method, income is reported in the year it is earned, regardless of when the payment is actually received. In turn, expenses are deductible in the year incurred, whether paid or unpaid. Therefore, a taxpayer using this method will claim the net cost of gasoline, that is, the total gasoline purchased reduced by the rebates applicable to those purchases.
I wish to assure the House, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), that the administration of this tax will not be an administrative nightmare as was suggested by him in the House. My department has made arrangements for refund claims on the basis of the passage
July 22, 1975

of the bill, and contingency planning for forms, for instruction sheets and for self-addressed return envelopes to be available at all excise offices, customs offices and post offices across Canada shortly after Labour Day-on the basis of the passage of the bill in the current month.
These forms, if completed in accordance with the detailed instructions on the back, will be processed by the existing computer taxation data centre in Ottawa, using the special program developed specifically for the processing of gasoline claims, without delay. I have given the times when they will be paid and the schedule in the year. When the bill is passed, I urge each claimant to take care in completing the form, which is to be a simple one, follow the instructions and then his refund will be paid in the time periods I have set up.
Frankly, I am pleased with the organization that my department has put in place for contingency planning in anticipation of the passage of Bill C-66. My officials are ready to proceed with the administration of the gasoline tax refund program. It is not the kind of administrative problem that the Leader of the Opposition suggested it would be.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It sure is for the public.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The form is designed so as to be easy to complete and yet provides my department with the minimal required information for compliance purposes. I emphasize, for those who have said it is difficult for the taxpayers, that we will not normally ask persons to send in their gasoline invoices with their claims, but will accept a declaration that the information given is accurate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Unlike the opposition, we have faith in the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: But they don't have faith in you.


Stanley Ronald Basford: However, claimants will be required to keep on hand documentary evidence of the purchase for audit by members of the Department of National Revenue in the event that there are a few cheaters, which members of the opposition seem to think there are in Canada.
I would merely recommend, and I do so on the basis that Bill C-66 is like all measures that have preceded it, contrary to what the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) said, that anyone who uses gasoline at this time for commercial purposes maintains a careful record of his gasoline purchases, particularly gasoline used for business, to enable him to file his claim as soon as passage of the bill and distribution of the forms are completed.
I am confident that the present excise organization and the existing data centre in Ottawa will be able to handle the processing of gasoline tax refund claims promptly and efficiently and without undue inconvenience to the general public. It must be obvious to members of the House that, contrary to the comments made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), my department has this matter of the administration of the gasoline tax well in
Excise Tax Act
hand and will be proceeding, following the passage of the bill, with the issuance of refunds in an orderly and expeditious manner as outlined in my remarks today.
I want to conclude by referring to the comments made by the hon. member for Peace River when he said we could commence to pay out the refunds without passage of the bill. That is not correct. I presume that what was being referred to when the question was raised in the House is that the claimant could use section 17 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of claiming the remittance of the special excise tax on gasoline. That is the section which allows the governor in council to make remissions. Presumably, what was suggested by the hon. member for Peace River is an order in council under that provision, remitting the tax to the purchasers described in new section 47, clause 5 of the bill. I hesitate to disagree with the hon. member for Peace River who is the opposition House leader, a distinguished member and parliamentarian. I am only a humble minister. But I am bound by the advice I receive from the law officers of the Crown.
I am also conscious of the fact that I have to run my department in accordance with the rules of the Financial Administration Act. I have always endeavoured to run the departments which I have headed so as not to receive adverse comments from the Auditor General. Therefore, I must regretfully decline the invitation of the hon. member for Peace River to pay the refunds before the passage of the bill. The fact is that such an arrangement would be illegal and impossible. A remission order under section 17 of the Financial Administration Act cannot be used for the purpose suggested, namely, that of paying the refunds before the passage of the bill. A remission order under that provision may only be made in the case of a tax as defined in section 17(10) of the Financial Administration Act which defines a tax as being, among other things, a tax "payable to Her Majesty imposed or authorized to be imposed by any Act of Parliament". Until such time as Bill C-66 is enacted into law, there is no special excise tax on gasoline authorized by parliament.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What an absurdity!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Let me say to a group of members who always claim to be conscious of the rules of parliament and who insist that the government should observe the rules, that I emphasize that this bill has not been passed. As provided in section 17 of the Financial Administration Act, we could only refund a tax that had been authorized or imposed by an act of parliament. On the other hand, it is in accordance with a well established tradition of this government, and of Conservative governments the few times they have been in office, that the amount can be collected from the time of the tabling of the ways and means motion, because when finally enacted into law, as I mentioned earlier, the bill and the tax will be retroactive to that date.
The second suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River is not workable because, in any event, the Financial Administration Act which provides for a remission order cf a tax authorized by parliament only provides for the remission of that tax to the taxpayer, namely, to the person upon whom the tax has been imposed. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the tax under Bill C-66 is

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
imposed on 20 refiners and 10 importers. I do not think the hon. member for Peace River is suggesting that we refund the tax to those 30 taxpayers, and yet those are the only taxpayers entitled to a remission under the Financial Administration Act.
The scheme under Bill C-66 is quite different from what the hon. member for Peace River envisages. It is not a refund of the tax to those 30 taxpayers but, rather, a refund of an amount equal to the tax payable to the purchaser of gasoline on which the tax has already been paid. The scheme of the bill is to provide relief by way of a refund to a group of people who have purchased gasoline. However, under the bill and under the Financial Administration Act that amount is not to be refunded to the taxpayers whom I pointed out, namely, the manufacturer, producer or importer of gasoline.
Much as I would like to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River that we pay out the refunds regardless of what parliament does and whether the bill is passed or not, which seems to be what he is saying, from the best advice I have from the law officers of the Crown and from my desire to run my department in accordance with practice which would not lead to adverse comment from the Auditor General, it is a scheme and an invitation which I cannot accept.
I have endeavoured in my speech to point out that the administrative problems involved with Bill C-66 when it is passed are not administrative nightmares as suggested. It is a workable bill. It is within the capacity of the department to manage and it can be managed without undue difficulty to the public. It will provide relief from the tax to a group of people, which I regard as important. Therefore having satisfied hon. members opposite that the proposals in the bill are administratively feasible, I hope we can pass the bill and show them that in fact it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) seeks leave to ask the minister a question.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, the minister indicated that he had contingency plans about forms, but then he went on and suggested that he had a simple form prepared. So that we may all see it, I wonder whether the minister would be willing to table a copy of that simple form.


An hon. Member:: Pass the bill and you'll see it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that would not be in accordance with past practice. Under the legislation, I am authorized to prepare forms and make necessary regulations.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: The legislation has not been passed.


An hon. Member:: Show them to us.


Stanley Ronald Basford: They will be approved and passed by the governor in council and by the minister responsible, when the legislation is passed.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could the minister not issue to hon. members a statement which would cover inquiries as to the routine to be followed by constituents pertaining to exemptions under the legislation? I have received a couple of applications already and people in business are asking how they can receive the exemption. If the minister could circulate an official statement to hon. members, we could then tell our constituents.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, one of the principal purposes of my speaking this afternoon was to set out the type of administration we would be conducting, for the guidance of those people in business and others who will be entitled to exemption once passage of this bill is made. I think the best thing the hon. member could do at this point would be to send his constituents a copy of my speech, and I will be happy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We don't want to confuse them.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a question. The minister recited quite a list of people who would be entitled to refunds, and he seemed to take some of the responsibility for having them on the list. I wonder if he could assure the House that he will consider adding to that lengthy list those people who are handicapped and who need special cars. It would be quite easy to segregate them. They have a driver's licence which restricts them to cars which are particularly engineered to enable them to drive, and it seems to me that group would be a worthy addition to the minister's lengthy list.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the tax policy and the decision regarding to whom the tax refunds will be payable is a decision to be made by cabinet on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, rather than myself. I have received representations, as has the Minister of Finance, from the very group of which the hon. member speaks and I know they are being very carefully considered by the Minister of Finance. Obviously, the list of people entitled to the refund cannot be expanded at this stage of the bill.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. There are a number of hon. members seeking to ask the minister questions. Hon. members know that it is not the usual procedure which is followed; however, if there is unanimous consent, the Chair is quite prepared to allow hon. members to put questions to the minister. The minister is still within the time limit of his speech, and that procedure could be followed if all hon. members agreed. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 22, 1975


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is not agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is required by the rules of the House that we ask for unanimous consent. We are not in committee of the whole House where cross-examination is permitted, but within reasonable limits I am quite happy to answer questions if my speech gave rise to them. Of course, I would be happy to get the bill into a committee of the whole House where my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and I could be subjected to close cross-examination.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't be impatient.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In view of the statement of the minister, the Chair can again ask whether hon. members agree that questions to the minister should be allowed. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is not agreed. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Epp@: This is open government, a real democracy.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The Liberals don't trust Basford.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has been recognized for the purpose of making a speech.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You guys don't trust the minister to answer, do you?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told the people of Canada that he would wrestle inflation to the ground. The budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) of June 23 and the legislation which will proceed from it, including Bill C-66 which we are now discussing and which imposes a ten-cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline, provide the people of this country with an excellent opportunity to see who is going to do the battling in this well orchestrated wrestling match. Whenever a Liberal government, whether in peacetime or wartime, calls upon the Canadian people to make sacrifices, one can always be sure that the sacrifices will be borne by the people least able to carry them. In this fight against inflation the burden will be carried by the victims of inflation and not by the beneficiaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An old Liberal tradition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It will come as no surprise to anyone that the corporate sector of this country will benefit very materially. It has already benefited by the previous budgets of the present Minister
Excise Tax Act
of Finance by means of rapid write-offs and accelerated depreciation which have given the corporate sector in the neighbourhood of $2 billion, and in the present budget it again does very well. It is benefiting to the tune of some $240 million, $200 million in tax credits and an additional $40 million through changes in the resource industry tax legislation. If, in the endeavour to wrestle inflation to the ground, somebody has to tighten their belt, it is apparently not going to be the corporate elite; they are going to be allowed to view the battle from afar.
*
Under this legislation and the related bills announced in the budget, the battle against inflation will be fought by those who must drive a car to work, by the employees who will have to pay higher unemployment insurance premiums, and by those who are unfortunate enough to be ill or bedridden.
Let me deal, first of all, with the increase in energy costs, particularly oil and natural gas. This budget will add to the energy costs of the Canadian consumer some $2 billion per year. The bill we are now discussing imposes a ten-cent gasoline excise tax at the wholesale level. By the time it reaches the retail level it will probably be in the neighbourhood of 12 cents per gallon. The $1.50 per barrel increase in the price of crude oil is imposed at the wellhead. By the time it reaches the gasoline pump it will probably be an increase of six or eight cents per gallon. Between the excise tax and the increase in the price of oil there has been added to gasoline, in all probability, 18 to 20 cents per gallon by the time the full effect of the present measures comes into operation.
It is true, as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) pointed out this afternoon, that fishermen, farmers, construction contractors and manufacturers will get refunds. He also pointed out that professional groups such as doctors, lawyers, dentists and self-employed persons such as salesmen, insurance agents, real estate agents and other self-employed businessmen will be able to deduct this additional cost under the Income Tax Act.
The minister's statement this afternoon makes it perfectly clear, however, that the one group that will have no recourse whatsoever is the workers who have to drive a considerable distance to work. As a matter of fact, the minister went out of his way to point out that if an employer pays the expenses of an employee travelling to work, that will not be deductible. Money spent by a salesman or a professional person carrying on his or her legitimate business will be deductible, but there is no way by which a worker who will have this additional burden imposed upon him will be able to deduct it or get a refund.
I suppose one can understand that a government which is mainly associated with people who live in cities and metropolitan areas who think of driving as a luxury or pleasure, fails to recognize that there are thousands of small towns and hundreds of small cities and rural areas in this country where people live a long way from their place of employment.
In my constituency, workers who live in the small cities of Nanaimo and Duncan drive 30 to 50 miles to a sawmill, pulpmill or logging camp. There are longshoremen who live in Ladysmith and Nanaimo who are on call to go to a

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
port anywhere on Vancouver Island. That can involve a trip of 50 to 70 miles return. Yet there is no way in which they can charge off the additional cost of them as a result of this tax. The use of a car is not a luxury for them; it is a necessity. There is no way under the program and the detail which the Minister of Revenue announced this afternoon by which these workers will be able to pass on to anybody the additional cost in the price of gasoline.
If business or professional people have increased costs, they can pass them on as legitimate costs of their operation, but the workers cannot do that. The worker is limited to the normal $150 per year deduction for expenses, which is just as applicable to a bank clerk who does not have to buy tools other than a ballpoint pen and who has only to catch a bus. People whose travelling expenses will amount to hundreds of dollars per year will have to pay the extra cost out of their present income. Therefore, they will either have to lower their standard of living or demand higher wages. If they demand higher wages, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will hold them up to the public as the main cause of inflation in this country.
The government has put forward three arguments to justify this ten cents per gallon increase for gasoline and the $1.50 per barrel increase in the price of oil which, as I pointed out, will cost the average consumer who drives a car anywhere from 18 to 20 cents per gallon. The first argument they put up is that raising the price will have the effect of reducing consumption. They tell us this was a conservation measure. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, all the evidence that can be procured indicates that rationing by the pocketbook has never reduced consumption. Take oil as an example. The price of a barrel of oil, from 1971 to 1975, increased from $2.90 to $6.50; that is, more than a 100 per cent increase, and it has been reflected in the increased price of gasoline. Has there been a corresponding reduction in consumption? No. As a matter of fact, consumption of gasoline in that same period rose by over 12 per cent. As a conservation measure, therefore, the increase in the price of gasoline and other fuels is not a remedy.
The second argument is that the government needs the ten cents per gallon in order to net $350 million this year- in a full fiscal year it will net much more-because they want to maintain a uniform price for gasoline across the country, and since there will be a deficit in the oil compensation payments this is the way to meet that deficit. Up until now the export tax has brought the government sufficient revenue to more than pay for the import compensation costs. This year the government thinks it will face a deficit-and it probably will-and therefore it is going to recoup its loss by placing this ten cents per gallon tax on gasoline.
I should like to point out that part of this $350 million could be secured by a much more rigid scrutiny of oil compensation payments to the oil companies. There is growing evidence that the oil companies have been ripping off the oil compensation fund and that they have been switching their deliveries of oil from high-price areas to low-price areas to enable them to collect the compensation payments and use the cheaper oil in other areas.

Remember, we are not dealing with a few Canadian companies; we are dealing with the great multinational corporations which control 90 per cent of oil production in Canada, 99 per cent of oil refining in Canada and which can ship oil around the world to wherever they choose. They have deliberately manipulated oil imports to get the maximum out of the oil compensation fund. The government could save some money in that area.
If it is necessary to raise money in order to meet a deficit in the oil compensation fund, surely it ought to be collected on the basis of ability to pay. I heard some Liberal members argue that they did not want to see this deficit made up by increasing the income tax, since we should be taxing people who do not drive cars. There is a simple answer to that. If the government wants to raise this $350 million a year, it could impose an income surcharge on incomes above a certain level. Certainly, when you deal with the middle and higher income groups you are dealing with people who own cars and operate one, two or even more cars.


Mr. Gilbert:: Do not forget corporation taxes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As my
colleague suggests, there is nothing to prevent the government imposing a small surcharge on this country's corporations in order to raise money and meet any deficit in the oil compensation fund. But the government did not choose either of those courses. It is not prepared to tax more heavily the comfortably well-off, nor the corporations. Instead, it puts on a flat tax of ten cents a gallon which everyone who drives a car must pay, including those who must drive in order to hold down a job. To me that is scandalous.
The third argument put forward by the government for imposing this gasoline tax and also for raising the price of oil from $6.50 per barrel to $8 per barrel is this: the government and the oil industry need the money in order to find oil and natural gas supplies for the future. I listened to the Minister of Finance on television on the night of the budget. He was holding a press conference and told the Canadian people that they must pay up today if they want to have oil and gas supplies tomorrow.
That argument is a fraud. There is no guarantee whatsoever that one dollar of the $350 million we are going to collect through the excise tax, or one dollar of the additional $400 million revenue which the oil and gas industry will get, will ever go into exploration for oil or the development of new supplies. Let us look at the experience of the last four years. As I said a few moments ago, the price of oil rose from $2.90 a barrel to $6.50 a barrel and the profits of oil and gas companies in the last four years have broken all previous records. The companies have never done so well.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Don't forget inflation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Inflation has not risen by over 100 per cent in that period, I point out to the hon. member. The profits of the oil and gas companies of this country are the highest in our history. But what has been the net result in increased exploration
July 22, 1975

and development? Did they spend the extra money they got from the Canadian consumer, with the connivance of the government, on increased exploration? No, they did not. Exploration activity has gone down, not up, for the simple reason that the oil and gas industry held this government up for ransom and said, "We are not going to carry on exploration unless you raise the price still further." That is why the price has risen from $6.50 to $8 per barrel, and why it will rise even more. The pressure continues to be applied to the government. When the government tells us that by giving the oil and gas companies more money we shall be assured of future supplies of gas and oil, its argument is entirely spurious.


An hon. Member:: We have a shortage now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I
said just now, 90 per cent of the production in this country is in the hands of foreign companies, which means that 90 per cent of the profits will go out of Canada. What assurance have we that even one dollar of those profits will come back to Canada to be used in the search for oil or to develop new supplies of oil and gas? There is no assurance at all, unless the government keeps giving the companies more incentives and more hand-outs as it has steadily for the last three or four years.
The other beneficiary of the increase in the price of oil and natural gas is to be the fr.deral treasury. The federal government will collect an extra $450 million from taxing the oil industry and natural gas, in addition to the $350 million it will get from the excise tax of ten cents a gallon which it will use to meet the deficit in the oil compensation payments. Is the government to put any of this $450 million into exploration for oil? On the contrary, it has already announced that it will cut back on the money available for Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada this year will be cut back to $10 million. That is mere bagatelle with which to launch an oil company. No part of the $400 million which the oil and gas industry will get, and no part of the $450 million additional revenue which the federal treasury will get, is earmarked for exploration of development. So when the government tries to tell the people of Canada that they must pay through the nose now in order to be assured of supplies in future, it is misleading the public and deliberately seeking to confuse the consumers of this country.
The second group who are to be the main battlers in the Prime Minister's wrestling match in which inflation is to be wrestled to the ground consists of the workers of this country. They will be called on to pay increased unemployment insurance. When unemployment insurance was originally introduced in this country it was a great step forward. The federal government contributed a fixed percentage of the cost. Later, the federal government par-suaded parliament to amend the legislation in such a way that the federal government was not to contribute anything until unemployment went above 4 per cent. Now the minister has announced that the federal government will not contribute anything until unemployment exceeds a floating eight-year average.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please, I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I am afraid he is straying from the subject matter of Bill C-66, which is
Excise Tax Act
an act to amend the Excise Tax Act. I suggest that unemployment insurance is not relevant.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: With great respect, Madam Speaker, may I point out that when the Minister of Finance spoke in the debate on this bill, he spoke about much more than the ten cents a gallon tax, as did other speakers. May I also point out that I am using unemployment insurance payments to illustrate the thesis I am seeking to develop, namely, that the ten cents a gallon tax to be imposed under Bill C-66 is discriminatory and in line with the government's fiscal policy of placing the burden of fighting inflation on those least able to bear it.
I point out, as an illustration, the fact that the government will not be contributing to the unemployment insurance fund until unemployment exceeds a floating eight-year average. This means that this year it would make no payment unless unemployment rose above 5.3 per cent. Next year they would make no payment unless unemployment exceeded 5.8 per cent, and in 1977 no payment unless unemployment exceeded 6 per cent. This would impose, in 1976, on employers and employees in Canada an additional burden of $350 million and, in 1977, an additional burden of $500 million.
The point I am making is that while the employers will be able to pass on this increased cost to the public in the price of the goods they sell, the workers will have to pay this out of their pockets in the same way they will have to pay the ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline out of their pockets. While the business community can pass on this increased tax and increased unemployment insurance payment, this cannot be done by the workers of this country.
I wish to give another illustration. The government intends to use as the shock troops in the fight against inflation the sick, diseased and bedridden of this country. Here the principle is exactly the same. The government calls for sacrifice to cope with inflation, but who is going to suffer? The Minister of Finance announced that the government is giving the required five years' notice to the provinces that they intend to pull out of the hospital insurance plan. He announced that they propose to put a declining ceiling on the increased contribution they will make to medicare. This year medicare costs are anticipated to go up by 16.6 per cent. However, the government says that next year it will only contribute on an increase of up to 13 per cent, the following year up to 10.5 per cent, and the year after that up to 8.5 per cent.


Mr. Lalonde:: Talk about the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who is interrupting but not from his own seat, and I can understand that because it must be a pretty hot seat to sit on-


Marc Lalonde: Why don't you talk about the bill?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can
understand the Minister of National Health and Welfare not wanting me to talk about health insurance and medi-

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
care, because in the question period he told the members of this House that the announcement by the Minister of Finance would not cause any person who is sick to suffer any hardship. He ought to know-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member is straying from the bill. I repeat, Bill C-66 is an act to amend the Excise Tax Act. I refer the hon. member to Standing Order 34(2) which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Madam Speaker, I could not imagine any more charming person to name me than yourself. I should like to point out that this debate has ranged over a very wide field. No one sitting in the chair stopped the Minister of Finance or the other speakers who dealt with the implications of the budget, not only with respect to this legislation but the other legislation that will flow from the budget. I recognize, Madam Speaker, that you were not in the chair, but I do not think the conduct of the Chair should alter according to whoever happens to be in the chair at any particular time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was
in the process of concluding by pointing out that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare tells us that no one will suffer, he overlooks the fact that the provincial governments are already carrying programs not shared by the federal government to the tune of $1.5 billion a year, and have already announced plans that will cost another $800 million a year. If the federal government carries out its announced intention of reducing the amount they will pay in the event that the costs exceed certain levels, the provincial governments will have only these alternatives: they will either have to abandon pharmacare, denticare and some of the other programs they are launching, impose sales taxes which are already as heavy as can be borne, impose a per capita tax on every family in the province, or impose deterrent fees. If deterrent fees are imposed, this country will be taking a backward step.


Marc Lalonde: You are out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Minister of National Health and Welfare knows this better than anyone else, but all he can say is that I am out of order. I am telling him that he is out of step with the people of Canada; he is out of step with the thinking of the Canadian people. He will be the first minister of health in any western industrialized country to go back on a program which until now has been a success. Therefore,

Madam Speaker, on the basis of the ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline, the increased price of oil, the higher premiums which workers will have to pay for unemployment insurance, the fact that the people of Canada will have to carry at the provincial and municipal level, and personally, a much higher share of health services, this indicates that this government has no sense of responsibility.
The Prime Minister promised the Canadian people in the general election of 1968 that he was going to build a just society. The Prime Minister likes to quote the poem that the universe is unfolding as it should. I say to this House that what is unfolding in Canada is a society which is neighter fair nor equitable, a society in which the well-to-do take the plums and the common people take the rap.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


@Acting Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Immigration-Reason for detention and interrogation of Dr. Fayez Sayegh, an Arabian diplomat; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Availability of Corporation's educational films to schools-Government action; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)- Dismissal of Messrs. Cho, Chew and McGuire by CN Telecommunications-Request for report.



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).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott). Is the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Francis:: No, Madam Speaker. You have recognized another hon. member. I hope I will be recognized next.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I will recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West after the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.


William C. Scott: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the Minister of
July 22, 1975

National Revenue (Mr. Basford) expound this afternoon on what will turn out to be nothing but a witch hunt. I was very disappointed that after the minister made his speech, he left the chamber. I was also interested in the simplicity of the forms he intends to circulate. I have seen a lot of government forms and not many of them have been simple.
I am disappointed in a government which has no faith in the Canadian people. That is exemplified by this government in Bill C-66. I do not dispute the ability of the members of the minister's department, but I think he is giving them a big job. I was also disappointed when the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) asked the minister to table the forms which apply to people eligible for tax refunds and he refused to do so.
This is a government which runs on subsidies and refunds. This is another subsidy they want to hand out, but first they have to take the money from the people. When I was preparing my remarks on this bill it occurred to me that I put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) concerning the price of gasoline at the retail level. I think it would be interesting to refer to my remarks as reported at page 3664 of Hansard of February 28 of this year. My question was as follows:
In view of the wide discrepancies in the price of gasoline which now varies as much as 14 cents per gallon between service stations for regular gas, will the minister look into this ridiculous situation?
The minister replied:
The government has never attempted to monitor gasoline prices at the retail level. It seems to me that because of the current surplus of products there is extensive competition, at least in some communities, at the retail level. On the whole, I would think that kind of competition would favour the consumer rather than work against him.
Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister for a sermon on the merits of competition in the gasoline market. I asked him to look into the situation to see how the industry could sell a product of the same grade at prices which varied as much as 14 cents a gallon, bearing in mind the low margin of profit received by service stations on a gallon of gas. Instead of looking into the matter, what we got from the government was unwarranted interference in the retail sales of gasoline; what we got from the government was taxation by decree instead of by the traditional method of tabling tax bills in the House. To be sure, we are debating the legislation to increase the excise tax, but we are debating it after the fact.
On the night of the budget speech, the operators of gas stations were thrown into a state of chaos. They were not sure whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) could raise the price of gasoline simply by making a statement in the House. They were not sure whether they should raise the price right at that moment. Most service station operators are early risers; they have to open their stations in order to serve other people who need to get an early start. I suppose the average opening time would be about 7 a.m.
The minister said on the night of June 23 that gasoline prices would rise as of that moment by ten cents a gallon.
Excise Tax Act
Surely the minister knows there are mechanical and technical problems involved in the changing of the pricing mechanism on gasoline pumps. It is obvious the minister did not take any of these things into account when he made his announcement. It would appear he placed the burden of responsibility for making the change on the individual operators.
The minister has not explained why the government imposed the tax by decree instead of by tabling legislation and allowing retailers and wholesalers at least a few days in which to prepare themselves for the change. An implementation date of July 1, for instance, would have allowed operators time to dispose of oil inventories and then to impose the increase only on gasoline purchased at the new price.
Apart from the way in which it was done, my chief concern over the price increase is that it will impose a further hardship on tourist operators. My riding of Vic-toria-Haliburton depends to a very large degree on tourism to average out the economic level, and the increase in gasoline prices will not only affect the operating costs of tourist businesses but will also constrict the travel plans of vacationers at a time when we are all trying to encourage Canadians to spend their vacations in their own country; at a time when we are spending millions of dollars on such things as "See Canada First" programs.
Last year, the government imposed a 10 per cent increase in federal taxation on boats and motors, thus posing a threat to the tourist industry and to the power boat and motor industries in this country. After considerable debate, the tax increase on boats was rescinded but the increase in the tax on small motors remained. Now there is a new tax increase on gasoline, with the threat of a further increase next month.
I have to wonder at times whether the government is deliberately trying to scuttle the tourist industry in areas such as I represent. I would be interested to know the amount of real income the government will realize from this tax increase compared with the loss of revenue the tourist operators will suffer. It is no wonder that many people who have spent their working lives in the tourist business are asking whether it is worth the trouble. To a large degree, a tourist operation is a gamble. Just one bad season caused, for instance, by a wet summer, could very well finish off an operation which lacked a strong financial reserve.
There are a number of questions which must be answered with reference to this tax on gasoline. In the first place, it would be interesting to know just how much revenue the government will receive from this tax. According to the latest figures of which I am aware, the amount is likely to be roughly $525 million a year. It should be remembered that merely to collect this amount of extra revenue will cost a good deal of money.
I should also like to mention that the preliminary estimate of the number of those who will be entitled to the gasoline tax refund is between 750,000 and one million. The number of refunds claimed will be considerably greater than the number of eligible refund claimants owing to

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
multiple claims by one claimant during the year. Refunds are expected to total $170 million in this fiscal year, implying a ratio of $1 refunded to every $3 collected.
How is the government going to police this? The Minister of National Revenue made reference to this and said that no bills would be required. We expect Canadians to be honest people, but I think we will have a real witch hunt on our hands here. The Unemployment Insurance Commission is a prime example of what I mean. They have a witch hunt on now, and I am convinced that they are much better equipped to handle it than the Department of National Revenue will be when it comes to collecting this new tax. I think we will have to require bills. I am quite sure in my own mind that bills will be demanded if there is a dispute as to the amount of rebate an individual is claiming. I know this will happen, yet the minister says no bills will be required. I cannot accept that, Madam Speaker.
New section 47 of the act provides for the refund of the gasoline tax to certain types of users of gasoline, such as farmers, commercial fishermen, hunters and federal and provincial agencies. The bill requires those who qualify for the refund to set up accounting procedures, to keep records of gasoline used and the amount of gasoline refund being applied for. This imposes an additional burden upon the users of gasoline. I venture to say the government expects that a great many people will probably not qualify for a large return, and rather than go to the trouble of filling in an application form, simple though the minister says it will be, they will forget about it and file no application. The government is depending on this additional revenue from people who do not trouble to claim a refund. Besides the time and trouble involved, it would also add to the expense of operating a farm or other small business enterprise. The federal bureaucracy is growing so many tentacles that at its present rate of growth it is only a question of time before those tentacles strangle smaller businesses, and only those businesses and industries that are strong enough to absorb this economic punch that is being thrown by the federal government will survive.
As mentioned by previous speakers, I think the government has forgotten the army of commuters travelling to work today. This is a problem, again, due to the lack of adequate housing in areas close to industry. Many of the major arteries into our cities carry large numbers of cars driven by workers commuting back and forth. These people will be penalized, something I do not think the government has taken into consideration. If we had proper accommodation provided for these people in our urban centres, this would relieve our highways of much congestion. But again the government has forgotten about this. Many hundreds of people in the rural riding I represent commute 90 or more miles back and forth to work per day each way.
Returning to my opening statement, the government could have used this opportunity to equalize gasoline prices from one province to another. If the government is so interested in this vital natural resource, why has it not done something to equalize gasoline prices? There must be something wrong. The government has had plenty of time
to do this. One gas station in a given area sells gasoline for 14 cents a gallon less than another sells the same grade: does that not warrant an inquiry? As far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, it does.
The spread between prices in various regions remains the same, so again I say this tax is simply a means for the government to raise additional revenue. Equalization simply was not in the finance minister's planning when he tabled this legislation, so we will continue to have a wide range of prices for the same product from gas station to gas station, from province to province and from region to region. It is almost as though the government is saying that if we want to live in certain parts of Canada we must be prepared to pay a penalty.
In his budget speech the finance minister wandered all over the lot, and when he did manage to touch base now and again it was to tell us some more bad news. The minister could have used this opportunity to tell the country that the government was prepared to take whatever steps were necessary to see that low interest loans would be made easier for small businesses to obtain. Some of my colleagues have already asked whether the government plans to use the revenue from this tax increase to provide low interest loans to small businesses, such as gasoline service stations. The answer has been given that the government has no intention of using the additional revenue for such purpose. The revenue is going into general revenue to satisfy the government's appetite for more money to spend.
I have received letters and calls from many people in my riding telling me that they cannot get loans to improve their businesses, which the government has been offering at 8 per cent interest. The simple reason is that the banks are not interested in lending money at 8 per cent or 9 per cent when they can get 13 per cent on the same money. There is no way the banks can be forced to lend money to small business operators of the kind I have mentioned, or to anybody else, at low interest rates, so these people end up-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Again I repeat the remarks I made a while ago. We are dealing with an amendment to Bill C-66, which is to amend the Excise Tax Act.


William C. Scott: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. My reference was to the gasoline industry and to the problems encountered by small business operators. I am also getting complaints from people who tell me that old customers are now pulling up to the pumps at their service station and asking for $2 worth of gasoline, whereas previously they bought a tankful.I know this to be the fact because I have witnessed it myself as well as having had complaints about it. These people say they can buy gas cheaper at stations down the road. As a result, many small, established businesses and filling stations are going to be ruined.
Every community in Canada, large or small, has its service stations, and in many of these smaller communities the service station is the backbone of the town or village economy. In addition to selling gasoline and oil, the service stations keep automobiles, commercial vehicles


and farm vehicles in working order, keeping this business in the local area and contributing to the economic growth of the community. In areas such as my own riding of Victoria-Haliburton they also serve the tourists who come to visit the area.
It has been suggested that the real reason for the increase in the surtax on gasoline is that the government wants to try to conserve petroleum products and that increasing the price is one way to do this. If that is so, then the government is certainly mixed up. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told me in this House in February that there was a surplus of petroleum products. Everyone knows that you do not get people to stop drinking, smoking or driving simply by increasing the price of cigarettes, alcohol or gasoline. The people who can afford it will still buy gasoline, just as they continue to buy alcohol and cigarettes. It is the people who can least afford the price increase on gasoline who will be hurt, just as they are the ones who are hurt most by any other tax increases.
What will happen to the people who will be forced to spend more money on gasoline? They will ask for more money from their employers. This will add to the inflation. This tax will represent another means by which this government contributes to inflation. This is the government that told us it intended to wrestle inflation to the gound.
I must say that no explanation on the part of the government will satisfy me that there is a justification for this latest increase in the price of gasoline. When one considers that the government estimates it will spend $30 billion in running the country in the coming fiscal year, it certainly seems odd, to say the least, that it requires the paltry $300 million to $525 million that will be raised by means of this tax. I say "paltry" because it seems this government considers any sum under $1 billion to be paltry.
There is a story that has gone the rounds for years concerning the mountain climber who was asked why he climbed the mountain. He replied that he climbed it because it was there. I am wondering whether the Minister of Finance decided to place a tax on gasoline on June 23 simply because it was there. When the minister has finished clearing up the mess in respect of collecting refunds in relation to this gasoline tax, I think he will wish he had looked elsewhere for additional revenue. Now we have been told by the Minister of National Revenue that the government will tax the refund in respect of commercial users of gasoline. Here we have another example of the government contributing to the costs of individuals.
Now I should like to deal with the record of the government in handling the oil situation. In the winter of 1973-74 the government created what I believe was an artificial crisis in respect of fuel oil. We were told by the minister that there was a huge shortage of fuel oil. There was no shortage, but the price of home heating oil was increased. We see from Hansard for April 2, 1974, that the government paid 991/2 cents per gallon for Rumanian oil while the world market price for oil was only 89 cents. Later, in Hansard for April 11, 1974, we note that the quality of the oil was so poor that the government received offers for it of 15 cents a gallon.
Excise Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I fail to see the relevance of the hon. member's comments to the amendment or the bill under discussion. Perhaps the hon. member would limit his remarks to the bill.


William C. Scott: With all respect, Madam Speaker, may I say we are still dealing with the oil situation. However, I shall move on. The gas tax and increases in the cost of home heating oil will generate revenue of about $2 billion. Once again, however, this amount will not go to the government for the purpose of expanding supply. This $2 billion in national revenue will certainly make up for the elimination of the 5 per cent tax on insulation building materials. I stress "insulation building materials". Back in 1974, as a party we advocated the dropping of the 11 per cent tax on building materials. The government gradually climbed down the ladder; it reduced the tax from 11 per cent to 5 per cent. Now the 5 per cent has been eliminated in respect of insulation materials. I do not know why the government did not go all the way and drop the 5 per cent tax on all building materials.


An hon. Member:: That would be too sensible.


William C. Scott: That is right, it would be too sensible. This blatant tax grab will have severe repercussions in the province of Ontario. It is estimated that the increase in the cost of fuel alone in Ontario will eliminate 15,000 jobs. It will certainly hit very hard the auto industry in Ontario. There is no emergency at present that would justify the undermining of the livelihood of as many citizens as will be the case in respect of this bill.
In closing may I say that because of the representations made by many members of this House, chiefly opposition members and a few members on the government side, in respect of this unwarranted tax and the effect it will have on the Canadian economy, I hope the minister will review the situation and withdraw this bill.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Madam Speaker, if there was any question about a silly season in Ottawa, I think it is quite evident it has arrived. The proof of it is clear. Even as I rise now, speaking on the government side as a backbencher, there will be those who will say I am prolonging the debate. Last night the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), speaking on the other side, complained that no Liberals had spoken in the debate on that day. We on this side are damned if we speak to defend the measure before us and we are damned if we do not rise.
I say it is a silly season. All members know that the weather gets warm in Ottawa in July and August. The hotter it gets, the more perverse hon. members become. Each side says publicly it does not mind sitting, while privately it says something else. As a local MP it is easier for me to come here than it is for some others. Some hon. members, however, seem to treat these sittings as a form of penance for having received a salary increase recently.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret interrupting the hon. gentleman but I should remind him that we are dealing with Bill C-66. Would the hon. member confine his remarks to the bill.

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Madam Speaker, I think my remarks are relevant to the bill. Few hon. members opposite have reached the point of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the House leader for the official opposition, who is quoted in this morning's Globe and Mail as saying that the government has been tampering with the air conditioning system to bring the opposition to its knees. I have a direct quotation from the Globe and Mail of this morning in which it is stated that the hon. member charged that the government has resorted to this measure to try to bring an end to the debate on Bill C-66. I cannot suggest a more direct proof of the silly season.
Every conceivable point that could be made in this debate has been made many times over. From previous experience, I look over to the other side of the House and wonder when the vote will come. It could not have come last night because there were not enough MPs present on the other side. Today it looks better. If a vote does not come soon, then we will see a corporal's guard do duty for each party and nothing will pass the House. I remember the summer of 1964 when we sat all summer on the flag debate. Eventually it was terminated by closure. Hon. members may well ask: Why are we here? Surely at this stage no one will be persuaded by reasonable arguments to change his or her vote.
Why does this charade go on? All hon. members are in favour of a one price system for petroleum products, with allowances for local transportation costs across Canada. In order to find the extra $350 million needed to subsidize foreign crude oil imported into eastern Canada, the government has proposed a tax of ten cents per gallon on gasoline, with rebates for commercial and industrial users.
No one likes a tax, and it is a great thing for the voters back home to fight taxes. Some say that the government should have made savings in other programs, without specifying where, or else that a program such as that carried out by Information Canada be abolished, which would by no means provide the sums of money needed.
Others say the subsidy should be financed out of general revenues. This is a good problem for economic theorists: comparison of the merits of a user tax versus a combination of personal and corporate income taxes. I am by no means satisfied that non-automobile owners, frequently elderly and retired, should be taxed to pay the import subsidy on gasoline. On the other hand, we all recognize that many people who have no choice but to travel to and from work by private automobile are hurt by the ten cents per gallon tax. But, as I said, it is a debate that the academic theorists can go into until the end of time.
Unfortunately, there is no perfect tax. The present measure appears, in my view, to be as good, as practical, and as fair as any that can be proposed in the present circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I hear interruptions from hon. members opposite in the NDP. They have their own whipping boy. It is all the fault of the multinational oil corporations. I am not prepared to say that these corporations may not have taken advantage of the situation to improve their
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
profits. That is possible. But last night in this House the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) cited the profits of Imperial Oil and said they were on strike, not doing exploration for new oil. When I pointed out that Imperial Oil has the largest exploration budget in the Mackenzie delta in its history, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) shouted "Yes, but they are spending our money". The logic of these arguments escapes me.
One thing is clear; the NDP has a new leader, or is it the same old one? And they must make a noise. They have taken the old drum, put a new coat of paint on it, and are beating it hard. The new-old leader announced on radio that he would keep the House here all summer on the Unemployment Insurance Act changes. Since the government did not oblige him by calling this measure for debate, his group have since been trying to make all the political capital they can out of opposing gasoline taxes.
The real opposition to the excise tax on gasoline comes from the official opposition, the Conservative Party. As everyone knows, this party really has no policy on the petroleum issue. In western Canada they rally round the Premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed, and demand that the so-and-so easterners pay more for western energy. In eastern Canada they bleat for the consumers, echoing Premier Bill Davis of Ontario. By opposing this special tax they can agree on something, and hide the differences in their ranks.
The real difficulty, Mr. Speaker-and, I suggest, the clue to this debate-is to be found in the fact that an election is to be called in Ontario very soon. After groping for an issue, and finding none, Bill Davis consulted his opinion polls. Last spring they told him that he was not doing so well.
Now Bill Davis has found what he hopes will be his fighting ground. He is going to campaign, it seems, against the federal budget. He will help the North American automobile industry, and will stimulate more housing activity. Finally, he proposes to be a great friend of the gas-buying car driver by a program that will delay still further any increase in gas prices due to raising the price of crude oil.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) had increased the basic price of western Canadian crude oil from $6.50 to $8 per barrel effective July 1, equivalent to five cents per gallon retail. Because of existing stocks many refineries stood to make windfall profits if they had been allowed to increase their prices immediately. They were asked to delay price increases for 45 days; this is until August 15. Premier Bill Davis went one better; he extended the freeze for 90 days-that is until September 30.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I hear hon. members applauding, including my friend from eastern Ontario. But we in eastern Ontario are most apprehensive about what will happen to us in the period between August 15 and September 30. Our gasoline comes from Montreal refineries using imported crude. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out, Montreal refineries, on the average, have smaller stocks of refined products than the refineries serving Toronto, based on western Canadian crude. Ninety days may not work as much of a hardship for the large
July 22, 1975

Toronto refineries, but many Montreal refineries will be using $8 per barrel oil long before Bill Davis' 90 days are up.
What will happen then? Will these Montreal refineries refuse to ship refined gasoline to eastern Ontario, including Ottawa? Will there be line-ups at the gas pumps? Or will Dr. Claude Isbister, an economist newly appointed to look into these matters by the government of Ontario, persuade Bill Davis that eastern Ontario gas prices will have to follow the same pattern as prices in Montreal? In that case Ontario will have its own two price system for gasoline for 45 days-a lower price for Toronto, and a higher one for eastern Ontario. But, as they say, Toronto is where the provincial action is. At this stage I confidently predict a provincial election to be called in Ontario, to be held before September 30. Eastern Ontario will not really count when the time comes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us how it will come out.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I do not have the capability of predicting the future. I have learned from my own previous experience, and I am a little timid about making predictions. I would simply say that I am confident voters in Ontario will come up with the right choice.
I appeal to hon. members from all opposition parties to put an end to the silly season in the House of Commons. Let Bill C-66 and the amendments come to a vote. There is really no further political capital to be made in prolonging this.debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in this debate. I know that several members are asking questions, given the length of the debate, but we believe on this side of the House that it is our duty to refute and fight that legislation which will su?ely sorely try a certain group of people, namely the workers. This is why we cannot accept such a legislation compelling a very special group, that is the low income group, to attain the objective of this budget-essential according to the government-which amounts to $500 million a year.
I heard a few minutes ago the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) coming up with fancy ideas and suggesting that the three parties of the opposition could be blamed for the delayed refunds, because the bill not being passed, the Department of National Revenue is unable to make the necessary refunds. It would perhaps have been advisable to vote that legislation before enforcing it. Then there would have been no delayed refund.
If we really wanted to examine the difficulties that this bill will bring to a very particular class of people that the workers are, it might not be necessary to make refunds because I felt, and I still do, that it might have been possible to recover that money that seems to be necessary to reach the objective of a single price across Canada, perhaps through income tax.
Excise Tax Act
We are wondering seriously. Why those exemptions? Why those exemptions for certain classes of people who can afford a lot more to pay than the working class? I will limit myself once again in this debate to reflecting the sufferings and difficulties caused to that working class that cannot get out of it otherwise. Exemptions are awarded to certain classes that are certainly in better position to meet the objective of the government that seems necessary-the budget-but that lets the workers support this weight.
I heard several members and I read over several speeches. In our ridings, Madam Speaker, all members, government members as well as opposition members, witnessed scores of representations made by voters who plead with the members of every riding to make the government see reason on this legislation that we regard as discriminatory and unfair. We regard it as such and we believe we are right. We know quite well that it is the same thing for government members, Madam Speaker. We know the system. There is no mistake about it. So should we defend the minister even if he is wrong? But in the circumstances we are being accused of delaying this debate. However, I would like it to be said out loud. We think we are discharging a responsability we have in this House of not supporting a legislation when it is bad. Of course, the system often leads us-on both sides of the House-to exaggerate on certain measures. But on Bill C-66 which provides for the increase and the recovery of $500 million a year to be paid by a class of workers who have no chance of getting out of it, we are going to fight that legislation, Madam Speaker, and I think we are right in doing so.
Last week I listened to the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) when she said she was courageous enough to implement an unpopular measure. An income tax increase is always unpopular, but I think it is more fairly distributed than the legislation now before us.
But if we go back to the eve of the election a year ago, it is clear that no one would have dared introduce such a measure, and today, considering the good mood in which the government seemed to be a year ago, such measures are proposed. This afternoon, I pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) a decision of his department that is hurting a group of dairy producers which had been promised a fair return. But through another measure the left hand takes away what the right hand had given them. Similarly, it is said with haste that taxes were not raised in the new budget. But in an oblique way, workers have their pockets picked of a tax nothing but direct.
And as far as we are concerned, we believe our duty is to fight a legislation that appears to be most unfair. For these reasons, we will go on urging the government to show more concern, more perception, and of course more fairness to all Canadians.
We have no contention with the single price of gasoline throughout Canada, out we cannot accept the way in which the money is to be picked in one group's pockets.
As was stated earlier by one of my colleagues, such a measure goes a long way toward antagonizing both the provinces and the tourist industry already burdened by inflation. Clearly, such a measure is most harmful to

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
tourist operators. It has also been suggested by another member that normally gasoline taxes are imposed by provinces to the extent needed for the construction of highways.
These provinces are antagonized once more. The government might say: Let provinces impose additional taxes. But we know perfectly well that there is a limit to that, and with this very heavy burden the provinces will be reluctant to seek the extra money needed to improve highways. We have there another negative effect of this legislation. We are trying to draw the government's attention to the shortcomings of this bill, the difficulties in implementing it, and it is our responsibility to remind the government of its own responsibilities.
It is not for the fun of it that we have been discussing this legislation for something like 10 days. And if it means discussing it 10 more days, I believe our responsibility is to do so, as recommended by our constituents.
How many of our constituents, as of today, have been asking us not to pass the bill, to make every effort to stop it. Some hon. members apparently think this is amusing. They should first explain it in their constituencies. How is it possible to suggest that people are against it in my constituency, but in the next one people favour such an increase?
Naturally, the minister spoke of that redistribution, of levying that unfair tax, and also of the categories that will be exempted. If he will give us the assurance that all the workers who have to use their cars to get to work will also be exempted, I think we could then make a compromise fairly quickly. Let him make us that proposal. Then, to my mind, we will not have pleaded for a bad cause, but will have won over the government to a far more humane bill, because the bill now strikes us as being unacceptable, and of course most unfair.
Under the circumstances, we must therefore continue to ask the government to lend us an attentive ear.
It is hard to understand, considering all the difficulties we have had in the last few years, the effects of a budget which was intended to be anti-inflationary when in fact it will be anything but. Even now, everyone recognizes that it will result in an increase in the cost of living. Yet, the budget was introduced as a measure to check inflation. This bill will achieve exactly the opposite. We therefore fail to understand the position of the government and its refusal to come back to its senses and redistribute the levy required to achieve its objective, but leaving out of it the poor worker, who has been tortured enough in the last few years, and who will now know greater difficulties because of a bill no one would have dared introduce on the eve of an election, which everyone knows. But the government has a majority, and elections will be held in four years.
They could not care less about the difficulties the bill will create. Of course, we will be blamed for prolonging the debate, because we have enough conscience to want to reply. Because we insist on doing so, we choose to oppose this bill. A few government members rose and tries to justify the actions of their government. We understand this system, but I do not believe, Madam Speaker, anyone

can be truly honest in letting the burden of that legislation fall on the shoulders of that group of workers instead of applying it in a much more equitable way.
Madam Speaker, when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) talked earlier, it was clear to anyone who can read between the lines that he wanted to let the public know that refunds might be delayed because the opposition is objecting to that measure. But we repeat he can keep those refunds, because as far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, we shall object for quite a long time to that legislation which we consider unfair. And I think it is the duty of the opposition to oppose the government which introduces such an unfair and unacceptable measure which discriminates against a particular group of citizens. I dare hope we will object to that measure until the government will water its wine and consider a more equal distribution. Madam Speaker, we only want that money to be distributed and collected if necessary. And we think it is necessary, there is no doubt about that. We have the same ends as the government, but not the same means. And that is the important point.
As I said earlier, I read again several speeches. How come that after so many speeches have been made, after so many members got information in their constituencies and were made aware of the difficulties their constituents were faced with, we are the only ones on this side of the House who believe this legislation to be a bad one? It is unthinkable! Any honest minded person, Madam Speaker, will agree with the good arguments which were put forward on this side of the House. And there are good, true arguments, and the public is asking for and demanding a very strong stand against such a discriminatory legislation, as I said earlier.
Therefore, it is not by letting the Canadian people believe that we are going to delay the refunds that we will increase our credibility. I repeat that, truly and honestly, this legislation should not have been applied before it was passed and the debate over. This fierce battle that we are waging against this legislation could certainly have been prevented, had the government assumed its responsibilities and applied this legislation only after it was duly adopted. The government wanted to apply it before it was adopted, and it will not be long before it accuses us of delaying payment of refunds. I do not believe that this argument weighs much against ours, Madam Speaker. I feel that we are meeting the wishes of a group of people who had enough difficulties as it was without having to face new ones, and it is in the interest of the workers who need to use their cars daily. Some hon. members have indeed referred to public transportation in a number of larger communities. Maybe adequate public transportation does exist, but we are all perfectly aware that public transportation services are inadequate in thousands of municipalities where workers must cover long distances to get to work.
Therefore, the argument of the Minister of Finance inviting the public to use public transport will not be valid as long as the government has not done more to better organize these services. The public is therefore invited to use a tool which does not exist in several areas. We find these arguments very weak and not applicable to the potential of an area or a society who needs them.
July 22, 1975

The government should not repeat that it has the courage to apply an unpopular measure. Through the income tax, it could have decreed a certain increase which would not have been popular, but would have been much fairer than making a certain category of people pay the price of this policy. It is with this in mind that we shall continue to ask the government to better understand the difficulties that this will cause for workers and that we shall try to make the government understand that our interventions are motivated by the requests of our constituents. Indeed, I am convinced that constituents of the government members have already shown their concern and asked their representatives in Parliament to urge the minister to propose a better distribution as concerns his objectives. In view of the circumstances, we believe that we are doing our duty even if certain government members are under the impression that we are delaying the proceedings of the House on purpose. I do not believe that we are delaying unduly the debates, but this gives us an opportunity to repeat, as we must, that the government does not seem to understand that this measure is unfair and discriminatory. We cannot repeat this too much.


An hon. Member:: Is the hon. member leaving us for the provincial government?


Roch La Salle: And I want the population to know that the opposition is doing its duty in this debate and that it will do so conscienciously. I also invite Montreal members, and those from other areas, to speak up. If there is agreement about the fact that the worker must be the only one to bear the burden of this legislation, let us say so and let us remember-


An hon. Member:: Will the hon. member speak a little louder?


Roch La Salle: We do not agree-


An hon. Member:: You will make the headlines.


Roch La Salle: -with the fact that the government should apply such a measure.
Maybe hon. members should rise more often. If they are tired of headlines, they will surely not have the best headlines by remaining silent as they now do and by supporting their ministers with a silence that proves to be intellectually dishonest. I, as well as the population, deplore such silence. For us, on this side of the House, this is no pleasurable experience, I am sorry to say, because I regret still being here in this House fighting such a piece of legislation, and all my colleagues would like, as is the case for many members, to end this session on a pleasant note. We have to bear this responsibility, we have commitments, and we would be making a serious mistake if we were to leave the government pass so bad a piece of legislation in such an easy way. And the population would blame us. Nevertheless, the legislation will pass.


An hon. Member:: Is the hon. member leaving for his holidays?


Roch La Salle: We want the population to be witness to this discriminatory measure on the part of a government which casts aside the interests and problems of a part of our working population. That is our goal. I feel that we are thus carrying out our responsibilities as members of Parliament. Members opposite us have also made commitments during the last election campaign, when they prom-
Excise Tax Act
ised a just society. We are still a long way from such a society. Simply have a look at our legislation, such as the bill on unemployment insurance which is still more unjust that the one before us now. Rest assured, that one is far from being passed. We have a part to play, we are going to play it, and from now on we are going to play it with regard to measures that prove harmful to our society, and it will be no fun. I wish to reassure my colleagues sitting opposite. We will not let such bad and unjust laws get through Parliament. From now on, we will do our utmost to make the population aware of such a bad piece of legislation and of the government's lack of sincerity.


An hon. Member:: Petty politics!


An hon. Member:: Is the hon. member leaving tonight? Happy holidays!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased this evening to discuss Bill C-66 meant to enforce some budgetary proposals which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) presented to the House on June 23 last and especially those concerning amendments to the excise tax.
I remember well, Mr. Speaker, that during his budget speech the Minister of Finance stated concerning the 10c. tax on gas that he wanted in the first place to finance the subsidy which would enable to maintain a flat price for oil throughout Canada and thus promote the conservation of energy. I admit that the government must take some steps to find additional funds to subsidize oil but to compel once again the average wage earner to foot the bill, this is something else! I entirely disagree with the Minister of Finance on that point.
There is no doubt that through this bill, the government is trying, by every possible means, to increase its revenue, but it is extremely deplorable that once again the average wage earner, particularly, is footing the bill. In mentioning that, I think immediately of the person who uses his car to get to work and earn his family's keep. The car is not a luxury to him, but a real necessity. He will have to buy gas, regardless of its cost.
Mr. Speaker, the 10-cent tax a gallon of gas will net the government something like $525 million but, on the other hand, that unjust tax will do much harm to some people, specially those on low income. Once again, the lowwage earner will be hardest hit by that increase in the cost of gas. Indeed, those people realize easily that it is costing ever more to earn enough to give their families a decent living, for the low wage earner lacks purchasing power.

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the tax on gasoline will simply contribute to fan inflation more and more, and I sincerely believe that the government is taxing people who cannot afford this increase, for there is no doubt the federal government will get the $525 million revenue which this tax will bring, out of the pockets of low income people. It could easily have raised the money by taxing the big, multinational corporations, thus redistributing Canadian wealth in a non-discriminatory way among Canadians.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government compels motorists to use public transportation. As my colleague from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said yesterday, and I share his view, people would use public transport if they were available to them.
As I have said, when it comes to encouraging people to use public transport, one must bear in mind that many workers such as those in my constituency have to travel 20, 30 and 50 miles to work, and have to use their private cars to drive to specific places.
As a result of this increase, they are particularly penalized. As for the argument that the increase would favour the saving of unrenewable energy, I do not feel it would have that much of an impact because I consider that the government is taxing only one part of energy users instead of truly tackling the energy problem.
I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is hoping that fewer people will be using their cars for leisure. Honestly, I am clearly under the impression that those who use their cars simply for leisure are going to keep on purchasing gas no matter what the price, and any piece of legislation aiming at saving gas, such as this one, will have no effect on those people.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is surely not a step in the right direction, because this increase will not discourage people from using the family car on weekends. One must realize that a person who takes his car to work in the morning does not really have any other means of transportation; it is more economical for him or public means of transportation, as I said earlier, are not flexible enough or have inconvenient schedules.
In reality, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is simply falling back on small wage earners and is also discriminating against the consumers who are the mainstay of our society. Moreover, those who will not pay the surtax will be able over and above that to deduct from their income their car expenses for business purposes. Whereas the small wage earner who will have to take the urban transit system to go to work during the week and who will want some time during the weekend to drive his wife and children out of the big city to be able to breathe something else than polluted air for some days will have to pay this surtax.
Following this way of thinking, one could suggest that the merchant who decides to go and watch a baseball or football game during his working hours will be able to charge his gas expenses to the advertising account of his company and this way he will abstain from paying this surtax.

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate but in fact, I cannot see any meaning in this, and I consider that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will certainly never reach his two targets, namely .to finance the grants maintaining a single oil price across Canada and to encourage the conservation of energy, as I said at the very beginning of my speech. This increase only aggravates the economic situation which is already unsound. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is only an inflationary, an unconsidered move, as so many other moves made by this government over the past years. Therefore I am forced to vote against this bill which only aggravates the situation of low income people which is already difficult.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, when considering the budget, the minister should have set a higher tax on alcohol and on tobacco instead of saddling low income earners with a tax on gasoline. Maybe the Minister of Finance does not know that many people need their car to earn a living. But the government preferred to ignore the people. If it had, of course profits would have been considerably smaller than they will be with the excise tax on gasoline. Maybe the minister and the government think that in three years, when the new election will take place, people will have forgotten that budget, but I personally do not believe such a blow below the belt can be easily forgotten.
When I meet people in my constituency, they ask me questions like this one: Does the government ever think of us? And among those people, there are gas station managers who frequently ask me the same question. Big companies increased the price of gasoline. Today, the government is helping them increase it again, and adds to that increase through a tax. Once again, big companies will drive considerable benefits. And we shall pay for it all, since the salaries of pump attendants will have to be increased. Mr. Speaker, in all this, gas station managers have never had the opportunity to increase their profits at the same rate as the salaries they have to pay their employees now.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how the government could wrestle inflation if they go on increasing prices every year, and I am no economist, but I think it is ridiculous to add fuel to inflation in such a way.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I plead with all my colleagues in this House, since the present government has a majority, to put an end to that discussion, and to all those speeches which all sound alike and are of no avail to the people. Since June 24, people have been paying a 10 cent tax on gasoline, while the bill has not yet been passed; and if my hon. colleagues decide to put an end to that debate, we in this House will all have an opportunity to spend a few days with our families and especially with our children who otherwise will have to go back to school in some time without having taken the full benefit of holidays with their whole family. And I say that again because all those speeches on this bill will bring nothing new to the people of Canada.
I hear my colleagues from the government applauding me. I thank them for it. But if ever speeches do not stop, I shall once again ask those who have just applauded, I shall ask them to urge the Minister of Finance to withdraw the bill so that we can all take holidays.
July 22, 1975


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak about a large number of people in my riding on whom the ten cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline places a very great burden. I speak of the many people who work in Fredericton and who must drive to and from their work because there is for them no alternative mode of transportation.
The city of Fredericton has taken over the public bus transportation system which operates only within the city limits. Although many people use this form of transportation, others find that it does not meet their needs. For those who live outside the city there is no form of regular public transportation which can take people to and from their work. The cost of land in the city of Fredericton and the scarcity of it in recent years make it prohibitive for average citizens to buy a building lot and so they must move outside the city to find a building lot they can afford.
What of the farmers in Millville, the workers in the St. Anne-Nackawic Mill, and the folks in Temperancevale who must travel to Fredericton for medical treatment? How else can they get there except by car?
People who live in communities like Stanley, McGivney, Durham, Bloomfield, New Maryland, Keswick and Zealand go to Fredericton to trade. How? There is only one way-by motor vehicle. There is no luxury. It is essential service.
People living in the Fredericton area travel to Oromocto to work, and vice-versa. Some are able to travel by bus; most are not. Civil servants, military personnel, hospital workers, some travel by bus, most cannot. They travel by motor car. There is no other way.
Senior citizens on fixed incomes who get a little pleasure from travelling around the beautiful landscape in central New Brunswick during our lovely maritime summer will find that their little pleasure is also taxed, and it is apparently the government's policy to restrict pleasure driving for senior citizens who have certainly earned the right to avail themselves of this form of recreation. The many wonderful people who on Sunday afternoons take shut-ins out for a drive through the lovely rolling hills in the New Brunswick countryside are also going to be penalized by this tax.
One of New Brunswick's most outstanding industries is the tourist industry and the selection of July 1 as the date when this new tax would be imposed on motor vehicle operators could not have been selected with greater skill if its intention were to hit our tourist industry at the time when it would hurt us most. For our woods workers and farmers, the trip to Fredericton on Friday night or Saturday afternoon to do their shopping, and the trip for a large and growing number of citizens to Saturday morning market in Fredericton are essential for the procurement of food and clothing. For most of these people there is no alternative public transportation system. They must travel in their motor car. Now it is going to cost a lot more and they can ill afford the increase.
These are the Canadians who carry the brunt of the tax. Che tax is not a deterrent to them to use less energy
Excise Tax Act
because their use is essential to their livelihood. In essence it makes money out of their pockets-money they desperately need to make ends meet in an inflationary economy. This is a tax with a vengeance and without mercy on those least able to pay it.
Fredericton, despite repeated requests on the part of myself and other representatives of the people, as far as I can ascertain is the only provincial capital in Canada which is not served by rail passenger service. Fredericton is connected to other New Brunswick cities by a bus system, but the rural areas in central New Brunswick are not connected to Fredericton by train or by bus. Our airport is now in the process of having its major runway repaired, and while this is welcome news for people in central New Brunswick, on many occasions this summer it will be necessary to impose a load restriction factor on planes flying into and out of Fredericton.
One of my colleagues has indicated in the House some distressing problems encountered in this respect, and I have on several occasions indicated to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), and the Chairman of the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, my views on the inadequate scheduling of flights. All this can be summed up by indicating that the motor vehicle is the principal means of travel of an essential nature in central New Brunswick, and operators of vehicles for these necessary trips will suffer the most because of this tax.
I submit that a one price system and any subsidy in connection with it should be supported from the general revenues of this country. In my opinion a ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline is the poorest type of tax which could be imposed. Without question, the government must increase its revenues to support a one price system, but to do so by imposing hardship on the people who can least afford to bear it does not appear to me to be an exercise in wisdom.
If my calculations are correct, the increase in the government's revenues as a consequence of the ten cents a gallon increase on gasoline, the increase by $1.50 a barrel in the price of crude oil and the 43 cents per thousand cubic feet increase in the price of natural gas will exceed by at least twice the revenue required to cover the difference between the payment to the eastern provinces and the revenue from the export subsidy levied by the Government of Canada on oil exports.
I hope the minister will reconsider his decision in regard to the ten cents excise tax on gas and consider the discriminatory aspect of it. I suggest that this does virtually nothing for conservation and it is not appropriate for funding the one price policy.
We, in my party, consider the tax to be intolerable because it falls mainly on the working people. In my view the subsidization of the one price system should be a general charge against the national treasury and not against the motorist.
While this tax increase hits hardest at the people in the maritime provinces where public transportation systems are not so much in evidence, it is in the maritime provinces that the Government of Canada can find part of its

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
answer in taking a major step in the direction of" conserving power supplies of petroleum and fossil fuel. If the government is serious in its desire to conserve petroleum and reduce our dependence on imported foreign oil for a high percentage of our energy needs, I suggest that we focus our most serious attention on one of the greatest energy potentials in the world which can free millions of barrels of oil every year, and year after year.
At the head of the Bay of Fundy between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia we have one of the most tremendous energy potentials in the world in the form of tidal power. The tides rise and fall some 50 feet twice a day, day in and day out, and this phenomenon will go on forever into the future. The magnitude of this tidal range is higher than anywhere else in the world. The volume of water which regularly and predictably rushes into this unique funnel shaped topography between our two provinces amounts to many times the flow of water in the Saint Lawrence River. The energy which this volume of water could generate when passing through turbines amounts to billions of kilowatt hours when converted into electric energy, and in turn represents millions of barrels of oil available every year, and year after year.
The feasibility of tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy was studied and reported upon in 1969. A review of this study was reported in this House during this session of parliament, and that review recommended five phased studies to move the project forward. These studies are not progressing with the dynamic energy that the current energy crisis requires. It would seem to me that a crash program financed and spearheaded by the Government of Canada is essential if Canada is to meet its energy needs in the immediate future and by the end of the century.
Another area worthy of immediate study by a government seeking to reduce energy consumption is a straight line highway, a direct route from New Brunswick to central Canada through the State of Maine, the Corridor Road, a route that could cut hundreds of miles off the travel distance between central and Atlantic Canada, and for commercial traffic this means hundreds of miles each week and thousand of gallons of gasoline each year.
I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has stated, this is an energy conservation measure, the government give full consideration to allowing motorists to deduct from their taxable income-the cost of engine tune ups, carburetor cleanings, air filters, and any other repairs to their vehicles which would increase gasoline mileage and reduce air pollution. This would offer some assistance to the motorists who wish to help the Minister of Finance conserve energy without being punished financially for their good intentions.
My suggestion is that the answer to the problem is not in taxing poor people for whom motor car transportation is essential, but lies in a form of positive leadership in developing alternative sources of energy and supporting the one price system out of the general revenues of our country where the criterion for raising the money should be the ability to pay and not a discriminatory tax like this which hits the hardest those least able to pay.

This tax again underlines the failure of the government to give leadership and focus the attention of all departments of government on the matter of regional disparity in the maritimes. DREE invests funds in transportation policies, or the lack of them, and then erodes industrial potential. The Treasury Board pays workers at lower regional rates, and now the Department of Finance exposes workers to severe hardship.
There is no strategy; there is no over-all plan; there is no determination to exterminate regional disparity. But there is a challenge and this government, or more likely the one that succeeds it, must accept the call of the Canadian people to get into the arena and win the day for them. So be it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in rising in this debate on Bill C-66 I am concerned about a number of things. The bill deals with four topics. If we quickly move from air transportation it strikes me that at first blush this bill is designed to encourage people to stay home, don't drive, but get drunk.
It appears that this bill encourages people to stay home because they will be taxed ten cents a gallon if they get out their cars and drive. Obviously they will remain in their homes because the government has been generous enough to take the tax off insulation materials, which will represent a saving of about $25 per house, and has taken the tax off wine.
I could not help but be somewhat amused by the comments of the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) who spoke in this debate the other night. Since this amendment seeks to delay this bill for a period of six months the hon. member seemed to suggest our attitude was that we should not do anything to solve the problem, that we should just stick our heads in the sand for six months and maybe it would go away. She said this is a terrible thing, that it is an ostrich-like attitude. She said that her government is providing outstanding leadership.
It was very funny when the next day the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) did not try to hoist something for six months but tried to hoist the PLO and the crime conference for an indefinite period. I can only hope that maybe he will stick his head in sand for an indefinite period.
The most obvious function of the excise tax bill is cruelly to put in place an onerous tax of ten cents a gallon on the working poor. I am not sure that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced the measure in the budget on June 23 he really knew what he was doing. On June 23 the minister said this was a conservation measure. On June 25 he said he had not carried out any study to determine how much gasoline would be conserved. He hoped it would be a conservation measure but said that really it was to raise revenue, some $350 million this year, and a larger sum in a full fiscal year.
When asked how the rebates would work and how the people would apply, the Minister of Finance at that time said that they did not have the regulations yet, that he was not too sure but that he hoped the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) would detail these regulations during the budget debate. During the budget debate the Minister of National Revenue had nothing to say, and we
July 22, 1975

can only presume he had nothing to say or to announce because the government had no policy with regard to the regulations. However, it then brought in Bill C-66 to implement the provisions announced in the budget. The bill turned out to be defective and the Speaker ordered it be withdrawn. The Minister of Finance could not even draft the bill properly. It was withdrawn for a day or so, the offending section expunged, the bill returned to the House, and finally the debate continued.
Then the Minister of National Revenue announced that yes, there would be rebates, but the government had just found out that it would have to tax the rebates, and nobody had ever mentioned that before. So I can only conclude that the government went along in an ad hoc manner, with the minister finally stumbling on the fact that he would have to tax the rebates. Certainly this does not indicate good planning or any sort of leadership.
Now on July 22, one month after the budget was introduced on June 23, we have the Minister of National Revenue indicating what the government plans to do. However, in effect he said nothing. He said yes, there would be rebates. As a matter of fact he said the government could implement a rebate system within two to three weeks. Then he added "We don't plan on issuing any rebates until after Labour Day". So it appears that if the bill passes this week, although there would be almost six weeks to Labour Day, he does not intend to implement rebates within two to three weeks, as he said he could; the government is going to wait until after Labour Day. I can only come to the conclusion that his statement about implementing them within two to three weeks is hogwash.
The minister did not throw much light on the regulations. He said people would have to fill out a form and would have to send the form in to claim a rebate. If a person was owed as much as $200 a month rebate, then he could apply monthly. However, if a rebate were anything less than $200, a person would have to apply semi-annually.
If a person, for example, was owed $150 a month, this means that at the end of a six month period he would have $900 owed him by the government. This does not strike me as very equitable and it draws a distinction between large users, which will likely be the big corporations, and the small users of gasoline, say an independent salesman. The government is forgetting the small, independent businessman, the small contractor or industry. They will have to borrow this $900 from the bank. If they are on an overdraft, they might have to pay 11 to 13 per cent interest, and, as I say, the situation does not strike me as at all equitable.
The minister said that the forms people will have to fill in have been drafted, but when we asked him to table one of these forms, he said he could not. I can only conclude that he does not have any forms to table. Indeed, I do not think the government in fact knows what it is doing. If I may use an expression of the Liberals and return it to them, they are asking the people to buy a pig in a poke. We have the pig all right, and would like to find out what the government intends to do with it.
Excise Tax Act
The fact is that this ten cents a gallon excise tax is a very regressive tax. If I may fairly state the matter, when the government is under attack for bringing in an unfair tax it should have the decency, if it intends to represent the people of this country, to reconsider its position. Obviously the Liberals seem to be digging in their heels. The Minister of Finance does not appear here to listen to the debate; he is represented by his parliamentary secretary, who himself is not listening but talking to another member. The government does not really know what is going on. Hon. members opposite have not been out on the hustings to question people up and down the streets of the cities of this country.
I do not mean to be antagonistic to my hon. friends opposite who presently form the government, but let me compare this with another situation where a government imposed a very unpopular and, if I may say so, regressive tax. Some two or three years ago the Honourable John White, then treasurer of the government of Ontario, introduced a 7 per cent tax on heating oil. This was a regressive tax which was attacked by all parties, including his own. The Conservative party, the government of Ontario, and the treasury had enough guts to say, "We have been wrong, it is a regressive measure", and the treasurer withdrew it. We do not find this happening with the arrogant people on the other side who merely want to rip off the Canadian public to line the treasury of the federal government, at the same time trying to hide behind energy conservation.
This regressive tax measure will cost the average working person some $200 to $300 a year out of his or her after tax income, taking into account increased heating fuel costs and unemployment insurance premiums as well. Surely by taking that much out of the taxpayers' after tax income the government is not only fuelling inflation but is encouraging inflation by inviting another round of increased wage demands.
It should be pointed out that price increases exert a direct and measurable upward pressure on costs, and a direct and measurable downward pressure on job creation. They are inflationary, increase unemployment and can erode our industrial competitiveness in many ways. For example, since funds will be taken out of people's pockets they will not be able to buy the goods that manufacturers put on the market.
It strikes me that these negative effects do not bear equally on all Canadians. This is obvious in terms of the worker who finds himself unable to secure a job. According to a recent United States study reported in the energy policy project of the Ford Foundation, families with an annual income of less than $2,500 spent 15.2 per cent of their income to purchase energy, whereas those with an income exceeding $24,500 spent 4.1 per cent. A University of Toronto study indicated exactly the same position in Canada. It is only fair to point out that because of this tax poor people will have to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy compared to rich people.
Oil and gas price escalation is a regressive form of taxation that will contribute to inflation and unemployment, as well as to the dislocation of the economy. At such
July 22, 1975

Excise Tax Act
time when inflation is contained and unemployment in Canada is substantially reduced, it may be appropriate to consider higher prices of fuel, but not in the manner of this ten cents a gallon excise tax. I suggest that perhaps this country will have to go to the world price of a barrel of oil over a period, but only after we have overcome the economic difficulties we are facing.
But I suggest we should approach this in the proper way, instead of the federal government in effect making those who drive a motor vehicle pay the world price for fuel.
I believe that the constituents in the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton as well as those in other parts of Ontario are opposed to this ten cents a gallon tax being imposed until inflation is brought under control, unemployment in the province-in my constituency it presently stands at 15 per cent-is reduced, and people put to productive work.
I believe the federal proposal announced in the budget is an unreasonable one. Along with the increase in home heating costs it will generate some $2 billion in additional revenue. But it will not provide extra money to the companies to enable them to find new oil. The proceeds of the tax go directly to Ottawa. I believe, moreover, that its imposition will have severe repercussions in the province of Ontario. In the next 12 months we shall see the consumer price index rising by 2 per cent because of these increases in fuel prices. Then, because of the loss of purchasing power in the hands of consumers, we shall find there are upward of 15,000 fewer jobs in the province.
To say this tax will damage industry is to put it mildly. Already, throughout Ontario and in other parts of the country as well, resort and tourist operators are suffering. People are not bringing their boats from the United States into the Rideau Canal system or into the Trent and Severn systems because they can use their boats more cheaply at home. The minister brought this tax in just as an important industry was getting off the ground, and it is having an unfortunate effect on employment in this area.
The minister estimates this ten cents tax will generate some $350 million but he does not tell us how much it will cost to administer. I suggest that a healthy proportion of the money will be eaten up by administrative costs. And while the government keeps the money, individuals, companies, and small independent businessmen will have to borrow money at interest rates between 11 and 13 per cent until they get their rebates-another cost factor to add to inflation.
It would be unparliamentary for me to say the Minister of Finance lied or deliberately misled the House by saying these measures would help conserve gasoline consumption, so I will not say that. But I can say that the minister by sleight of hand did deceive the House into making us believe that energy conservation was a high priority in his mind. I see that on page 32 of the minister's nicely bound budget speech the third paragraph commences:
The increased cost of gasoline resulting from these measures will encourage motorists to make their driving habits more efficient in terms of saving gasoline.
Later on, after a lot of mumbo jumbo about the conservation of fuels, he adds: "improved driving practices-can make significant contributions to needed fuel conservation".
In fact in the course of the next question period, on June 25, he admitted he had taken the steps outlined in the budget without making an estimation of any fuel conservation which might result. As reported at page 7043 of Hansard, he admitted, "The primary purpose of the tax is to pay for a single oil price in Canada." In other words, the purpose was to raise revenue, not a cent of which will go to the producing provinces or to the oil companies. None of it will help to find new sources of oil.
Escalating the price of oil and natural gas is frequently advocated as a means of reducing the rate of growth of consumption of these energy sources. In fact the relationship between the price of energy and its consumption is much too complex to be described by the simple assertion that higher prices result in reduced consumption. Gas prices have gone up from about 39 cents a gallon in the Ottawa area in 1973 to about 72 cents for regular gasoline. During this period there has been no noticeable decline in gasoline consumption. The price of regular gasoline could probably go up to $1.25 or $1.35 before people even considered reducing their purchases.
I would draw attention to one other aspect of what the Minister of Finance has said, because it bears repetition. He had the effrontery to say, on June 23, that the increased cost of gasoline would encourage the use of public transportation. Last spring, a little more than a year ago, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) told us that transportation is in a mess.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So is he.


Paul Wyatt Dick: True, but we are just talking about his department tonight. It is still in a mess. During the election campaign the government of the day promised its way to victory to the tune of $3.5 billion worth of promises, almost $1 billion worth of which related to what it planned to do in the field of mass transportation. They offered the electorate high-sounding words. They even issued a paper in the middle of the campaign. But since then we have heard no policy setting out what they propose to do in the area of mass transit. In fact in the very budget we are discussing the Minister of Finance cut back the funds available to the Minister of Transport.
Now, after this failure to produce a policy, the Minister of Finance has the effrontery to say that this tax will encourage the use of public transport. There are two cities in Canada which have good mass transit systems-Montreal and Toronto. But Canada is not just Montreal and Toronto. There is an awful lot more to Canada than those two cities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: In my constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton people from Carleton Place ordinarily travel to and from Renfrew, which is 26 miles away. They travel on a daily basis from Renfrew to Arnprior, a distance of 21 miles; they drive from Renfrew and Arnprior to Ottawa, which is 40 and 50 miles, and return. They drive these distances because they have to do so. If they did not,

July 22, 1975

another government department, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, would step in and say they were disqualified because they have to be available for work and possess transportation to get within 40 miles of where they live. So, when the Commission says people must be able to travel 40 miles, it means they must have cars because I am not aware of any rapid transit systems which cover such an area.
So people are being told by one government department that they must be able to travel to go to work. The Minister of Finance says he will encourage and provide mass transit, when we know it is impossible because the Minister of Transport does not have a policy for mass transit. So people must take their cars. People such as factory workers, janitors, and people who work in the service industry, the lowest paid in the country, must drive in whatever car they have, whether it be a 65 model or, if they are lucky, a 74 or 75 model. It is these people who will be penalized and will have to pay.
I do not believe this measure is reasonable or fair, especially when the minister indicated that doctors will be able to claim a rebate on the ten cents a gallon tax, and so will lawyers, and company officials and executives who drive company cars. But what about the working stiff? This government does not care about the guy who works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: A member of the NDP joined us last night to give a speech, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). He sounded reasonable for a change, more so than the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
There is one further problem which I want to point out and which the government is perpetuating and encouraging, because one level of government is continually working against another level. I live in a constituency, of which I am very proud, which unfortunately, because of unemployment and loss of opportunities in one portion of it, the Renfrew county area, has been designated by DREE. Fortunately in part of the Arnprior area, because of DREE a number of industries have located there. However, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), that great minister from Toronto-"Blarney" they call him, I think-does not provide any money for building houses, so there is no housing in the Arnprior area, but the industries are there and they have to employ people. Many of those people live in Ottawa and commute to Arnprior. These are the type of people who will be penalized because in this government one department does not work in co-ordination with the other so that the whole area could prosper. On top of that the government brings in a tax which works against these poor people who have to travel because of the inadequate housing policy.
I do not want to prolong my comments on this matter any further. I have tried to make a number of points which I think are important, one of them being that the working person must be considered, not just the rich people. I will give another example, that of a province, Ontario, which withdrew its support for a regressive tax. This government should reconsider its position.
It strikes me that of the five people on the government benches who have stood up to defend this tax, probably
Excise Tax Act
the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) said it best when he spoke of the "silly season" because we were all still here. But may I point out that it is the silly season because the government brought in such a silly tax.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -as a result of the clamorous approbation and demand for me to make a few remarks this evening I am not only willing but anxious to take part in the debate on this bill because, when the budget was brought down, together with the usual bills that accompany it, my reaction and my comments at that time were that they are measures that attack the sick, the old, and the poor. I thought that at a time when the government should be worrying more about the people I mentioned, this kind of legislation would be the last kind it would have introduced.
Even if we gave the Liberal party the benefit of the doubt and even if we called them liberals with a small "1", even if we admitted they might be honest, upright, and sensitive human beings who have some feelings and compassion for their fellow citizens in less fortunate circumstances, one would have thought that they might have done any one of a number of other things rather than what they did in this bill in order to accomplish the same ends, namely, finding $350 million more this year, and $525 million each year thereafter.
I want to suggest some alternatives which should have been in this legislation but are not, and also I want to add to what has been said by many other hon. members- including some members on the government side I was pleased to hear-on the injustice and unfairness of this legislation. If there is anything that the Liberals have raved about since before Confederation, it is how just and fair they are. Yet this legislation could not be more unjust and unfair. Its objective, as the minister stated, is to raise enough money to cover the deficit in the oil compensation fund. Another objective is to provide for the conservation of energy, and still another is to encourage people to use other modes of transportation. All these are laudable objectives. But the government uses the worst kinds of methods to achieve these objectives, and I submit that by using them it will not in fact achieve the objectives.
Let me deal first with the matter of injustice and unfairness. Mention has been made a number of times about who will be eligible for rebates. We know it is those who do not need the rebates. We know it is those with the highest income, the highest wherewithal, and those who enjoy the greatest wellbeing who will receive the rebates.
I know the Liberals are usually backward, but when they go to these lengths they should tiot be surprised at the length of this debate. In fact I hope the government House leader has noted with some qualms this evening that we have more news for him. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is back in the House in good health and will take part in this debate. I know that all hon. members will welcome him back to this chamber. If there is anybody who is an expert in showing the injustice and unfairness of the Liberal government, he is the one.
7842

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
He is a past master at it, and I look forward to hearing him in this debate on a number of occasions.
Let us talk about the unfairness and injustice of this legislation. Those who will be eligible for rebates are doctors, among others. Doctors do not make house calls-I have not found one in years who would make a house call-but they will get refunds for driving to work. Where do they drive to? They drive to their offices, all the expenses for which they can deduct from their income tax. When they do not drive to their office, they drive to the hospital, which is totally maintained at the taxpayers' expense. And for that they are entitled to a gasoline tax rebate. Contrast that with a steelworker in the city of Regina who lives in the south end of the city and who must drive to a steel plant north of the city limits. He will put 6,000 miles a year on his automobile driving to work, the same as the doctor about whom I spoke.


Mrs. Holt:: Steelworkers make pretty good money.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, back home when we hear noises like the one I just heard from the hon. lady across the way, we say it sounds like a coyote with heartburn.


Mr. Orlikow:: You are being unfair to coyotes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The steelworker will put 6,000 miles per year on his car driving to work, and using the figure of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) of 16 miles to the gallon, that is 475 gallons. The ten cents per gallon in this bill will cost $47.50. The five cents per gallon for the increase in the price of oil makes another $23.75. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said this afternoon, you can bet that with those increases the refiners, wholesalers, bulk dealers and retailers will pass on their percentage mark up, and by the time it goes through the hose into automobile gasoline tanks we will be paying an additional five cents per gallon. The increase in total under this legislation and other legislation resulting from the budget will be 18 cents to 22 cents per gallon. That means $95 to $100 per year more for that steelworker.
All I can say is that there goes that $100 per year tax rebate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) so generously handed out prior to the last federal election. He has taken the whole thing back. However, the real point is that the doctor drives to work in exactly the same way as the steelworker, but the doctor gets the refund. His income is $50,000 to $100,000 per year in Saskatchewan. He receives the refund, but the steelworker who earns $9,000 to $11,000 per year and who drives even more miles to work does not receive it. Any self-respecting Liberal I know in Regina-Lake Centre does not call this just or fair.


Simma Holt: Check your figures.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will check my figure, but not that of the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) is seeking the floor to ask a question of the hon. member. This can only be done with the consent of the hon. member.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Agreed.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, I actually should ask a series of questions. I wonder where the hon. member got his inflated idea of doctors' incomes. I wonder where he got the idea that doctors drive to hospitals when they can walk. Does he mean that they could walk when they are answering an emergency call? If they have to go down three times a night, should they walk, or should they drive their cars? I just wonder where the hon. member gets the $50,000 to $100,000 income figures. I would like him to quote figures from some authority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I could not care less if the doctor walks, takes the bus or drives his car. That is not the point.


An hon. Member:: Let's hope it's your life in doubt.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In fact the doctor who makes emergency calls down to the emergency ward at the hospital in the middle of the night is no different from a good friend of mine who is a foreman at a steel plant. He can be called back to the plant several times a week on emergencies. Doctors can receive refunds on the gas tax, and the steelworker cannot. That is what we are complaining about, and that is what is unfair and unjust.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have compared the figures of the hon. member with my figures, and I think he suffers from an intellectual astigmatism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since I want to use up my 40 minutes, I hope Your Honour is deducting all these entertaining interjections which I am allowing. I would not want the House not to have the full benefit of my entire 40 minutes.
Let us move to the next group of people whom the Liberals say they feel so strongly for, stand up for, and fight for. Let us consider old age pensioners who may or may not be on a guaranteed income supplement. They do some driving, but not very much. They do things like drive to get their groceries, and to the doctor. The doctor will not come to see them. They drive to see their children and their grandchildren. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Scrooge, and the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Midas, are trying to chisel old age pensioners out of another $1 or $2 a month with the gasoline tax.
What has the government accomplished? As with the worker, where they will not take back the $100 tax rebate it granted a year ago. Now with the old age pensioners the government can take back that pittance of an escalator clause in the cost of living index which old age pensioners receive. The last increase was, I believe, $2.33 per month. Now the government can take it back from the pensioners with the gasoline tax for the few paltry miles those people drive, and they cannot receive a rebate, but doctors and commercial enterprises can.
People cannot receive the rebate, and I want to say that I am not implying that doctors are not people. My hon. friend across the way is a real fine example of people, but
July 22, 1975

doctors act like corporations and are treated like corporations by this government.
Let us go another step and consider the handicapped. One of my hon. friends to my right raised this matter this afternoon when questioning the Minister of National Revenue. Mr. Scrooge and Mr. Midas sit on the government benches. Mr. Midas, the Minister of National Revenue, said that there is no way he could or would amend this legislation to allow for rebates for the handicapped.


Mr. Cullen:: He didn't say that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is the way I heard it, and that may or may not be something the governor in council will consider. I have a letter which arrived the other day, and incidentally I wrote to the Minister of Finance on July 9. I have not as yet received an answer. The letter I received is from a senior official in a department or branch of the government of Saskatchewan, and he said that one of his senior staff members is a record review officer and a paraplegic. Other than his wheel chair his only means of transportation is his car. It is a specially equipped automobile. It is the only thing in which he can ride. He is earning a living. He has learned to cope with an affliction with which most of us could not cope. He is not eligible for a rebate, but doctors and commercial enterprises are.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And they laugh.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If there is any conscience whatsoever in the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance, or any other Liberal over there, they will amend their legislation now. They will add a clause so that there will be a clause 47(f), or (h) or whatever so that the handicapped are automatically eligible for the rebate.
Let us look at some more of these injustices. The minister says this measure is aimed at conservation of energy, and that people will shift to other modes of transportation. If he is correct and if that happens to any degree at all, I hope somebody over there can tell me how the minister is going to raise the $350 million to $550 million that he needs. If the legislation has one of the minister's desired effects then it will not bring in the ten cents per gallon. It is just stupid. I have seen the Liberals do some dumb things, Mr. Speaker, but this is the dumbest. That is why it cannot and will not work; that is why it cannot achieve one of the objectives that the minister claims.
I have listened to members talk about transportation in this House and, Mr. Speaker, that subject has been my main concern since I came here in 1968. I say that the alternatives to automobiles are either inaccessible to the mass of working people who will not be eligible for rebate or are of insufficient frequency or capacity, or both. In addition, fares are not low enough to encourage people to shift to another mode of transportation, whether for work or pleasure.
I heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) castigate his counterpart in Ontario, saying if he is so concerned why does he not reduce the provincial gasoline tax? As usual, Madam Speaker, Sas-
Excise Tax Act
katchewan is ahead on this, and the NDP is keeping it that way.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: That is why everybody is leaving.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Three thousand people have just come back from Alberta.


Iona Campagnolo: Or B.C.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One is as good as the other. Madam Speaker, Saskatchewan has forgone ten cents per gallon of its gasoline tax. It has forgone seven cents per gallon directed to the consumer, and another three cents per gallon no longer goes to the provincial treasury; it goes into the automobile insurance fund.


An hon. Member:: Because they lose money on it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, they do not. In B.C., they are still learning. They still have not got rid of all the reactionary capitalists who are fighting public automobile insurance.
I want to remind the hon. member that one of the principles that guides us in automobile insurance in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba is that we say that anybody who would make a profit off the misfortunes of others is immoral.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is why we have an automobile insurance plan in three provinces and, mark my words, it is going to be in another couple pretty soon.
Saskatchewan forgoes nine cents per gallon of the gasoline tax. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said today that if we are so concerned about consumers we should do that, and we did. Now the Minister of Finance takes ten cents per gallon more, and the consumers in Saskatchewan are worse off than before. Saskatchewan has the second lowest gas tax in Canada. Alberta has ten cents per gallon tax and Saskatchewan has 12 cents. In our province we tried to do something to protect consumers from the rising costs of energy, and not only did we get no thanks from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but the Minister of Finance demanded another ten cents per gallon.
I should now like to turn to unemployment insurance cases. I am not going to talk about unemployment insurance premiums which were mentioned several times in this debate as an additional iniquitous and unfair tax. Unemployment insurance regulations say that, when you are unemployed, to be entitled to benefits you must be fully available for and actively seeking employment. This is where the Liberals forget about the hundreds of thousands of people in this country who live in small cities, towns, and villages and farms, and who are unemployed.
To illustrate-a constituent of mine in the village of Semans, Saskatchewan, who was unemployed last year was told by the UIC that seeking employment in his villages and six neighbouring villages was not sufficient; he should seek employment in the city of Regina. It is a good thing he did not find anything there because it is 80 miles away. It would have been a round trip of 160 miles
29669-13)4

July 22, 1975
Excise Tax Act
per day, and with the additional ten cents per gallon there is no doubt he would be better off unemployed.
The incongruities and inconsistencies in this legislation show just how dumb the government is. There are alternative ways of raising the same amount of money, and I am not disputing the desire of the government to raise several hundreds of millions of dollars for the oil compensation fund. But it does not need to and should not be raising it through people who can least afford to pay it, and exempt the people who can most afford to pay it.
We have suggested several times that the income tax system should be used in one form or other. Let us look at what a thinking Liberal might do.


An hon. Member:: Where?


An hon. Member:: There is no such thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not here tonight.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Wait for it! If you found a thinking large "1" Liberal he would at least have the imagination to say, "Let's put it on the personal income tax". That at least would have some relationship to ability to pay.
The projection of the federal government is that in 1975-76 it will raise $11.4 billion in personal income taxes. To raise that additional $525 million that it says it needs for the oil compensation fund in order to have one price across the country would mean an effective tax rate increase of 5 per cent in the higher brackets. That would raise $500 million or $525 million, and would be a marked improvement over the method chosen in Bill C-66.
Let us go beyond what a thinking Liberal might do- that will take in most of the population of Canada. In 1974 industrial corporations paid $5 billion in corporation income tax. That was an effective tax rate of 32.4 per cent, since their net income before taxes totalled $15.5 billion. A 3.3 per cent increase in the effective tax rate for corporations would give the government the $525 million it says it needs in 12 months. That is a second alternative which could be used for raising this money, and I suggest it is even better than anything a thinking Liberal might do. I will give the Conservatives credit; they might think of the idea, but they might not do it.
Let me propose two other alternatives the government might consider. This afternoon the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands mentioned a surcharge on corporate tax, or a combination of a surcharge on corporate taxes and a higher tax on individuals in higher income brackets. You could raise $525 million if you imposed a surcharge of 4.6 per cent on individual taxable income. You could raise $525 million with a 10 per cent surcharge on corporate taxes payable. Or you could use a combination of these methods, but the point is that they are related to ability to pay. You could and should also exempt those in the low and low-middle income categories, and you could still obtain more than the $525 million you need.
Let me suggest a final, good New Democratic Party socialist alternative. It would be simple to implement and,
in a way, provide corporations with a benefit not available to others.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, the benefit of nationalization.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As at the end of the first quarter of this year there were outstanding on the books of this country over $7 billion in deferred corporate taxes.


An hon. Member:: That's right, tax everyone out of existence.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member might learn something if he would listen. Everyone knows that those deferred taxes will never be paid. As I say, there were $7 billion worth of deferred taxes on the books, as of March 31 last. They represent an interest free loan from the people of Canada to those corporations, by virtue of the workings of our tax system. Let me recommend this socialist alternative to Bill C-66. Remembering that our constituents must pay between 10 per cent and 12 per cent for mortgages, and that you cannot obtain an individual loan for anything less than 11 per cent or 12 per cent, we should charge the corporations in Canada which owe $7 billion in deferred taxes the low interest rate of 7.5 per cent on those deferred taxes. That is how you could raise your $525 million for the oil fund.
The rest of the citizens of this country cannot defer their taxes. If they could I am sure the Minister of Finance and the Liberal sheep would think of some way to charge them interest. Why not charge the corporations interest? If the party opposite, the so-called party of the just society which supports free enterprise, supports a system of deferred taxes under our tax system, surely it should not support the idea of these deferred taxes being an interest free loan from the public of Canada. I suggest we should be garnering some modest rate of interest; and, at today's rate I think 7.5 per cent on those $7 billion of deferred tax would be a very modest rate. It would not be excessive.
No self-respecting corporation could complain about paying too high an interest rate. They pay much more when they want to build a shopping centre or high rise office building. They will borrow money at 10 per cent or 12 per cent for those; but the people of Canada would only charge them 7.5 per cent on those deferred taxes. If you did that you would have more than you require for the oil compensation program. I suspect that the 7.5 per cent paid on deferred taxes would do more than meet the requirements of the oil compensation fund. It would provide tens of millions of dollars more, which could go to exploration and development of oil, gas, and other energy sources. It would be applauded and accepted by the people generally, and reputable corporations would say it is fair. The disreputable ones, the friends of the Liberal party, may not think it is fair. That's tough.
At one time Liberals and free enterprisers generally used to get some money from the rich and votes from the poor, and promised to protect them from each other. They refined that. Now they give money to the rich and take it from the poor, and still say they are protecting them from each other.
Why did I suggest either a surcharge on the corporate tax-payer in higher income brackets of 10 per cent, or a 7.5

July 22, 1975

per cent interest rate on deferred taxes owing as of March 31 last? What has been happening in this country? I made those suggestions because of the imbalance that has occurred since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his regime came to power in 1968. Madam Speaker, in 1968-69 individual taxpayers in Canada paid 34 per cent of the total tax revenues of the government; corporations paid 20 per cent. There was a spread between 34 per cent and 20 per cent.
By 1970-71, under this just society type of government, individual taxpayers were paying 41 per cent of the total tax bill and the corporate share had dropped to 17 per cent.
By 1972-73 the just society boys with their organizational genius had arranged for the individual taxpayer to pay 43 per cent of the total tax load and the corporations to pay only 16 per cent.
This year there has been a slight recovery. In 1975-76 the individual taxpayer will still carry 41 per cent of the load, but the corporations will have to carry 20 per cent.
By collecting that $525 million from the corporations in 12 months, the government will increase the corporate share of the tax load in this country by another two or three percentage points and make the corporations bear a slightly fairer share of the tax burden of this country.
I have suggested three or four alternatives, one of which even a thinking Liberal could buy. Even if you levied extra tax on personal incomes, that measure would be fairer and more justified than what is proposed in Bill C-66. If the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and all those seals and sheep on the government side want to get home fast, let them follow my suggestion. It would take only two or three days for the Minister of Finance to bring in a new bill which incorporates any one of my suggestions, and everyone will be surprised at how fast it will pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this evening in support of the amendment of my leader to give the bill a six months' hoist.
This bill is a rather interesting piece of legislation. It results from a lack of foresight on the part of the government. This lack of foresight is the failure to develop an adequate energy policy and adequate transportation policy.
The bill does four things. First, it takes the excise tax off insulation materials, storm windows and storm doors, something that should have been done a long time ago. While it will only result in a saving of about $25 per home, this portion of the bill is worth while. It is welcomed.
Second, the bill increases the transportation tax, putting a burden on the travelling public. If the money from this transportation tax were used to update landing facilities in the various airports across Canada it would be welcome. If you talk to some of the airline pilots they will tell you that landing facilities at many airports in Canada are inadequate to handle the larger jets, and in some respects
Excise Tax Act
are hazardous. No one would object to a tax on transportation if the moneys were used in the interest of safety for the travelling public. However, I suspect that the money will be used on Mirabel and Pickering airports.
The bill further reduces the tax on domestic wines with more than 7 per cent alcohol by 20 cents per gallon. For wines with less than 7 per cent alcohol, the reduction is 40 cents per gallon. The bill increases the tax on gasoline by ten cents a gallon. It seems that the minister has his priorities mixed. He imposes a ten cents excise tax on a gallon of gasoline and reduces the tax on wines by from 20 to 40 cents per gallon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hearl


Douglas Charles Neil: The minister gave a reason for this in his budget speech.


An hon. Member:: To get drunk.


Douglas Charles Neil: I quote from page 26 of the minister's budget speech:
Second, I have also been persuaded by many representations that the increased excise imposed last fall on wine is seriously affecting the domestic wine and grape growing industry of the country. The excise will therefore be reduced to its previous level effective tonight.
One would have thought the minister would have had the foresight to see that this ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline, on top of the other various programs of this government over the years which have led to high rates of inflation, will affect the citizens of this country. Perhaps they more than the wine industry are entitled to a break. After all we can do without wine, but we cannot do without gas.
What is the purpose of this ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline? The minister made two points in his budget. First, he talked about the gap between the compensation payments on oil imports, saying that these had grown rapidly due to the fact that the volume of our oil exports had fallen while our imports had risen. He said at page 32 of his budget speech, and I quote:
Although the increase in the domestic oil price and the forthcoming adjustments in the import compensation program will help, the gap will be substantial.
It is difficult to be precise about the figures because the amount depends upon international prices, export volume and a number of other domestic and international factors. The cost of the subsidy for eastern consumers will be about $1.3 billion this year. The gap between that cost and the export charge revenues is likely to be several hundred million dollars in fiscal 1975-76 and may widen in future.
This tax, according to the minister, will raise approximately $350 million in the balance of this fiscal year. If one relates that to a twelve month period it amounts to almost $420 million. That means the car owners and operators of this country will contribute $420 million in the next year to subsidize the province of Quebec and the mari times.
As a Canadian I believe in an equalized price for gasoline throughout all of Canada. However, like many in western Canada, I feel that equalization should work both ways. When central Canada was paying much less per gallon for gas at the pumps than we in western Canada, there was no talk of such equalization. However, when it appeared that central Canada was going to pay more than


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: A darned good speech!


Simma Holt: It shows there is some talent over here-a little originality!


Douglas Charles Neil: I think the hon. lady was confused. Either the heat had gotten to her or she spoke in jest, because if she had sat back and thought for a moment she would have realized that her remarks about the ostrich school of
July 22, 1975

politics describe the present government exactly. The Liberal government has for many years stuck its head in the sand.


Mr. Whittaker:: Too bad it wasn't quicksand.


Douglas Charles Neil: And if she thinks what she calls the big blue ostrich in Queen's Park will be replaced by what she calls a progressive and forward looking bright red Liberal bird of substance, thought, and good government, that big red Liberal bird will be shot down by the gun of the voter, and the bright red plumage will flutter across the countryside of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hooray!


Douglas Charles Neil: Over the years Canadians have been led to believe there were unlimited supplies of oil and gas in our country. We were led to believe that all we had to do was to go to western Canada or to the Arctic and punch holes down, and the gas and oil would come spouting forth. Suddenly the situation changed overnight. The OPEC nations increased their prices and the government and the National Energy Board began shouting shortages. Any shortages are and will be the fault of the government.
The policy of the government is such that it is discouraging exploration and development. We see oil and gas rigs leaving the country almost every week, together with the skilled crews required to operate those rigs. The rigs should be in western Canada and the northern Arctic, exploring and developing our future supplies of gas and oil. The government should have had the foresight to anticipate a few years ago that we would be faced with shortages. The government should have anticipated that our future reserves lie primarily in northern Canada and that a pipeline down the Mackenzie valley was a necessity. In addition, a land settlement with the native people is necessary before the pipeline can be built with the least amount of social and economic unrest among our native people.
Over the past number of years the government has anticipated nothing; it has merely proceeded in an ad hoc manner. The result was that no attempt was made to deal with the problems and claims of the native people until an application was made to build the pipe line. The Berger commission should have been set up years ago, instead of under the shadow of an energy crisis in the north.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) speak about multinational corporations. It seems to me that many of these multinational corporations are now being looked upon as corporate welfare bums. I point out that without the oil companies we would never have had an oil supply developed in Canada. We would never have had the resources we have had in the past and which we have today.
The government has not told the public that for every gallon of gas sold in Canada the provincial and federal gasoline and excise tax takes anywhere from a low of 41.5 per cent of the basic price of a gallon of gas in Alberta to a high of 60 per cent in the province of Quebec. Neither has it told the public that out of the $8 wellhead price for gas
Adjournment Debate
the federal and provincial governments, through royalties and federal and provincial income taxes, take upwards of 75 per cent. We have developed Petro-Can to solve our problems, but I wonder whether Petro-Can will be able to operate on 25 per cent of the wellhead prices as well as paying its interest on its debt, exploration development and production costs. Looking at the balance sheets of various Crown corporations in Canada today, I doubt it.
I have no hesitation, Madam Speaker, in supporting the amendment of my leader to give this bill a six months' hoist. I feel that if members on the government side of the House have a conscience and have the interests of Canada and their constituents at heart, they should support the amendment. I am looking forward to a summer recess, but I hope that before that time the Minister of Finance will either support the motion of my leader or withdraw the bill. I hope he and members of his cabinet during the summer recess will develop policies in the area of energy, transportation, and economics which will put Canada back on the rails of economic recovery.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, it certainly gives me great pleasure to be able to speak on the many parts of this devastating bill which will have serious effects on all parts of northern Canada. Most of the people living in communities in my constituency which have roads have anywhere from 500 to 700 miles to drive to reach the main centres in the province. I refer to miners who use their cars to go to work every day. If they want to take their families on a summer vacation they have to travel 700 miles, and will have to pay this ridiculous ten cents a gallon tax to reach a holiday area.
Another problem facing many of the people in the riding of Churchill who live in these remote communities is that there is no public transit system. The people must use their cars if they are to travel at all. Some of these communities comprise as many as 20,000 people. Yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has imposed this ridiculous tax and has burdened the people who are the backbone of our country.
I will now call it ten o'clock, Madam Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, it is my earnest hope that this will be my last utterance in this august chamber until mid-October. I am also tempted to urge those members who do not stay for this delightful period to follow the advice of Lady Macbeth and to stand not upon the order of their going but to go at once.

July 22, 1975
Adjournment Debate
On May 26 I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) about the detention and interrogation of Dr. Fayez Sayegh at the Toronto International Airport. This distinguished-scholar-statesman who heads the PLO observer delegation to the United Nations was carrying a diplomatic passport from the government of Kuwait. He had been invited to be guest speaker at the annual meeting of the Canadian Arab Federation, a group to which many Canadians of Arab ancestry belong.
The minister, in response, declared that the facts as I had stated them were generally correct. I thought then, and I think now, that we must be extremely careful not to allow our immigration department and its officers be a vehicle of bias in the confrontation in the Middle East.
Members of the Israeli government and other individuals come to Canada frequently to address audiences on their point of view on the current and, alas, continuing conflict in the Middle East. No one ever hears of any spokesman for the Israeli cause having trouble entering Canada, nor should they have. Public discussion on such issues should be welcomed.
But for any Palestinian spokesman to come to Canada to discuss the Palestinian cause and case seems enormously difficult. They are harassed, detained, interrogated, delayed for hours at airports, and embarrassed by immigration officers following them to public meetings and pursuing them with further questions. It is most unfair. It cannot be suggested that to deny Canadians the chance to hear both sides of the issue is the act of a country adopting an even-handed view of the Middle East crisis.
I was also appalled by the suggestion that all members of the PLO are prohibited entry into Canada. Such a view has with it the implication that all PLO and all Palestinians are a threat to the security of Canada.
Dr. Sayegh is a case in point. He is an internationally known scholar, the son of a Presbyterian minister, a man whose knowledge and experience qualified him as one well worth listening to. That such a person with a diplomatic passport should be embarrassed and held up while entering Canada at the invitation of a reputable Canadian organization is an outrage.
We should not be too eager to suppress the right of the long-suffering Palestinians to state their case. The contemplated presence of two or three Palestinian lawyers at the UN crime conference was inflated as a threat to the security of the great city of Toronto and the vast province of Ontario. I found such assertions as incredible as the government's response to the pressures and proclamations against Palestinian attendance at a UN conference to which they had the right to come.
This is not the place to analyze the government's decision on the proposed Toronto conference, but I doubt if world peace of Canadian foreign policy will be enhanced thereby.
It is to be hoped that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will realize some of the delicacy and sensitivity of the problems of the Middle East, the chief of which is the fate of the Palestinian people.

I was a little disturbed at some replies I received to an order paper question. Contrary to the minister's oral reply, the answers denied that Dr. Sayegh had been detained and interrogated. The same blanket of denial was drawn over inquiries regarding Palestinian and other Arab labour leaders who entered the country through Montreal recently. My information leaves me no doubt about the incidents. These people did not receive a warm welcome or routine entry into this country. The former need not be expected; but all Palestinians ought not to be made special cases and presented with the presumption that their visit is designed to be hurtful to Canada's security.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) raised this matter in the House on May 26, 1975, he was informed that when Dr. Sayegh sought entry he admitted membership in the Palestine Liberation Organization and that this, under Canadian law, made him inadmissible to Canada. The policy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, in cases where a prohibited person is invited to speak by a reputable Canadian organization, is to allow that person temporary entry under the minister's permit if it is considered that there will be no threat to Canada's national security. This is called the Nicholson policy.
All that can be added, Mr. Speaker, is to assure hon. members that no slur was meant to be cast on a foreign diplomat attached to the UN but that the action taken was required by his admitted membership in the PLO.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-AVAILABILITY OF CORPORATION'S EDUCATIONAL FILMS TO SCHOOLS- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second parliament in which I have tried to have CBC broadcasting educational films provided to schools and universities across Canada. Actually for four years school boards and universities have been attempting to obtain these films. The stalling by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the CBC in respect of the solution of this problem has now become absolutely ridiculous.
It is disappointing that the minister is not here to answer questions on such an important subject. The question of the CBC providing educational films to school boards and universities throughout Canada is of major importance and is a subject on which I hope the government can throw some light tonight.
There are certain problems in respect of the present Copyright Act. In the last parliament I made the following suggestions for amendments to the present act:
(1)	copying and duplicating should be allowed for, subject to suitable safeguards to protect the legitimate interests of the creator and publisher;
(2)	In the case of broadcast programs of an educational nature there should be recognition of the need to record them for playback within a limited period. In this situation the tape recording may be used to meet timetabling requirements without royalty payment; (3) transmission of copyright material through closed-circuit television systems should be subject to reasonable royalties and fees in terms of the specific target audience.
School boards and teachers have experienced distress-
July 22, 1975

in the last four years
-because of current inadequacy in legislation and failure to reach agreement at the federal level. The Canadian Teachers' Federation has presented a number of briefs in this regard and I believe note should be made of some of the comments which have been made public. One is as follows:
"Since there appears to be widespread expectation that the Copyright Act will be substantially revised in the near future, CTF believes that such a revision could not be long delayed and that it is of the utmost importance that all interested parties should have the opportunity to participate in the revision. The brief complains that CBC program materials are being handed over to an American-dominated private company for distribution on a profit making basis".
Here is a quotation from a statement by .. . the CTF president:
"I am pleased to have a strong mandate to secure the full and free use in Canadian schools of educational programs developed with the support of public moneys . .. we will present our views regarding the difficulties being experienced with video taping of school telecasts for viewing at a more convenient time because of the present copyright laws as well as certain contractual arrangements at the CBC".
In the last parliament I presented a bill, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. The government agreed at that time to allow the bill to go to committee. We finally got it to committee, and one afternoon at 3.30 p.m. seven Conservatives arrived to discuss the bill. The only other people in attendance were a couple of CBC officials and the chairman of the committee, who is a Liberal. We did not have a quorum and therefore we could not discuss this bill in committee. People in the educational field had come to Ottawa to participate in this committee meeting, they came from B.C., Nova Scotia and all across Canada. They were insulted, and they felt they were treated with contempt by the Liberal government and the Liberal members of that committee.
I was hoping that this bill could be sent to committee in this parliament because obviously the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the CBC, is not capable of finding a solution to this problem.
Recently I received a letter from the Canadian School Trustees Association. The executive director wrote:
Your bill has been labelled "simplistic" and that is a great compliment. I am becoming tired and angry with people stating that things are complex, and no simple solution can be found.
It is very strange that the Secretary of State and the CBC cannot find some solution to this problem after four years. There has been an exchange of correspondence such as I have never seen in my life. In the last parliament every member of parliament received letters from school teachers, school children, school trustees, associations and universities giving support to this bill, and all the cabinet members were bombarded with mail. So was the Secretary of State and the CBC. But here we are going through the same exercise in the thirtieth parliament. You can see, Madam Chairman, how ridiculous this is.
A couple of weeks ago I asked the minister what he was doing about the problem. I received the biggest run around that I have ever witnessed in my life on what they are doing to Canada's educational system in regard to this problem in providing CBC educational films in Canadian schools. We are talking about six million school children and about every school and university in Canada. It is absolutely ridiculous that the government has not found a solution to the problem by now. Four years is more than enough time.
Adjournment Debate
I received one letter from the minister back in 1973, and he indicated the following:
CBC is conscious of the desirability of making an early statement on the matter of providing some programs for use in schools. However, the problem is complex and it is not known yet whether release of a significant number of programs will be possible.
As soon as it is able to do so, the corporation will be making a statement. If the study proceeds as at present, this may be by the beginning of the next school year, or shortly thereafter.
This letter is dated July, 1973, and this should have been solved in 1974. Here we are in the middle of 1975, and we are still talking about the problem. Now the Schoolteachers Association and the School Trustees Association and all the schools across Canada are going to start another letter exchange, writing to all their members of parliament, the Secretary of State, and the CBC to see if they can get them off their butts to do something about this problem.
This problem has reached ridiculous proportions. I cannot find the words to explain it, and I hope the parliamentary secretary has some reasonable explanation tonight.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) it is fairly common knowledge that CBC has been carrying out a detailed study of the problems associated with a plan to release a large number of its television and radio programs for use by non profit organizations and by individuals following broadcast.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has already mentioned that CBC has accepted in principle the responsibility of meeting the heavy demands for its programs from schools, service clubs and church groups, demands which originate in all parts of Canada. On the basis of its studies up to that time CBC included in its estimates last fall an amount sufficient to enable it to get started with its further use project in the current fiscal year. Funds slightly in excess of $1 million were made available by the government.
The Secretary of State has been informed by CBC that two or three important issues are still under consideration. For example, the corporation has been studying the impact of its further use project on the private Canadian non theatrical film industry. It is quite possible that the release of CBC's programs into a limited market may have a detrimental effect on a part of the film industry and that this, in turn, may adversely influence other initiatives of the department to assist the growth of the Canadian film industry generally.
In itself concern for the private companies is not a reason to delay the inauguration of the further use project, but CBC feels that the situation should be carefully explored. The corporation will begin further use project distribution as soon as possible. It is aware of the high expectations held by many, and is determined that the project will be successful.
7850

July 22, 1975
Adjournment Debate


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DISMISSAL OF MESSRS. CHO, CHEW AND McGUIRE BY CN TELECOMMUNICATIONS- REQUEST FOR REPORT
John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on a matter I raised in this House yesterday afternoon regarding the dismissal of three employees from the Canadian National Telecommunications system, Mr. Cho, Mr. Chew and Mr. McGuire.
After arriving back in Ottawa Sunday night I made sure I was in my office early Monday morning. I telephoned the office of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), the office of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), and the office of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), and gave them notice of my question. I spent them a copy of a letter I had received from Mr. Horbulyk, who is the acting chairman of the Canadian Telecommunications division of CB of RT and GW. I sent the ministers a copy of the grievance which had been filed by the union on behalf of Mr. Young Cho. I told them that I wanted to ask this question in the House. I thought it was a very serious matter, and I hoped by giving them this notice we could receive some proper answers and take away a shadow which has been cast over these three men.
The minister in his answer said that he immediately got in touch with the president of CN and he was supposed to have another discussion with him. He also stated:
I know they have been following this practice for a very long time. However, this practice worries me as much as the hon. member.
It certainly worries me, Madam Speaker, and I was quite pleased with the answer. I knew the minister was concerned and viewed this as a very serious question that he wanted to discuss with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and cabinet. I did not ask a supplementary, fully expecting that today in this House we would have an answer from the minister which, if not complete and detailed, would at least give some idea of what had happened. Today in answer to the same question I received the same answer although I have not had a chance to check it over.
I find it unbelievable that the government, which seemed so concerned, and the Minister of Transport who was shaken by the matter, cannot get an answer from the president of Canadian National Railways. Certainly the president should be able to have an answer for the minister by the next day. If he had said today that somebody was on vacation I could understand that at this time of year, but we received no explanation.
The shadow that has fallen on these men scares me. Three people have been dismissed by a large corporation and not told the reason. When asked by the union, the management stated that they are not at liberty to say why Mr. Cho had been dismissed. The union explained that this left Mr. Cho in a very strange position, and management agreed and said had Mr. Cho worked in a non-security area his dismissal would have been unnecessary. One immediately assumes then that this man is a security risk, and this is the shadow cast on the other men. If they are, we should know, and we should know why they were hired in the first place. They must have had to go through some clearance in order to be hired.
Mr. Cho has been offered another job in the company in a non-secure area. He says he sees no reason why he is
regarded as a security risk. He was cleared by the United States army when, as a captain in the South Korean army, he was sent to Texas for training.
The thing that frightens me is that three union clauses were violated. Clause 1 states in part:
An employee... will not be disciplined or discharged until his case has been thoroughly reviewed.
That did not happen in this case, and this is one of the grievances filed. Clause 2 states in part:
... and will be advised of the reasons for such review.
Clause 3 states in part:
... an employee will not be held out of service pending rendering of decision except in case of a dismissable offence.
That clause was also broken by the government. When a large company like CN can violate a union agreement, that means any company in this country can do the same. The government should take swift action. I am sure I gave the parliamentary secretary some information tonight. We have not got complete answers yet, but tomorrow this House should have a full explanation from the minister of why the rights of three people in Canada have been violated by a company associated with the government.
The president of CNR, who has been approached by a minister of the Crown, should be fired if he cannot tell the House within 24 or 48 hours why three employees were dismissed in an underhanded way.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has indicated to the House that he is most certainly concerned about the problem raised yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) and he contacted the president of the CNR immediately upon learning of the situation. I hope my hon. friend opposite will give us until tomorrow. I cannot account for the delays, but I understand they are legitimate and that the minister will have the opportunity for further discussions! with the president of the CNR on this matter.
The minister is aware of the serious implications of the practice involved here, and I believe he indicated to the House yesterday that he intends to raise the matter with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet.
I am advised that .the three employees involved were offered other positions because they did not meet the requirements of their positions, but if I understand my hon. friend correctly that is not his information. I will check that out myself; I believe it refers to only two of them. I can assure my hon. friend that his concern is shared by the minister.
I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta knows, from his experience in this chamber, that no member is more deeply concerned for the rights of working men and women of this country than the present Minister of Transport. I hope the hon. member will allow us a little more time to provide an answer that is acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin)::