1975-07-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Because of the present dispute between the government of Canada and the province of Manitoba which threatens hydro development in northern Manitoba, and the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this House on Friday, July 18, 1975, pursuant to which he tabled correspondence whereby all agreements between the government of Canada and the province of Manitoba were to be announced jointly in a spirit of co-operation, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the government immediately undertake to meet with officials of the province of Manitoba with a view to bringing this dispute to a conclusion for the benefit of all Manitobans and northern Manitobans in particular.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing importance. Inasmuch as articles of a treaty, known as The Lake Winnipeg Treaty No. 5, were made and concluded at Beren's River and Norway House in 1875, on September 20 and 24 respectively, between Her Majesty the Queen and the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree tribes of Indians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).
That congratulatory messages be sent from this House to those bands of treaty Indians adhering to the provisions of the said treaty and who, early in August, will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the signing of The Lake Winnipeg Treaty No. 5.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House before the presentation of this motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Considering the revelations made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) and reported in the July 24 edition of the Montreal Gazette concerning undue influence and lack of secrecy about the budget submitted in November by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and considering that such circumstances destroy the confidence that our population has placed in its government, and especially in its Minister of Finance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the Minister of Finance resign immediately to help preserve the integrity of the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.

July 24, 1975
CSC Pension
[English j


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion, to which I hope the House will agree. The broadcasting division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, NABET, and other CBC unions are experiencing difficulty obtaining from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation details of their pension plan, to which I am sure we all agree they are entitled. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts be authorized to inquire into the pension plan of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with a view to the obtaining of information about the pension plan to which the employees of the corporation are entitled.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 41 require the unanimous consent of the House before this motion can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Reid) to deal with this problem and answer questions, this will in no way derogate from the right of members of the opposition to question ministers who are here on this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: There can be nothing to prejudice that during the question period. If 45 minutes is safeguarded, there is nothing to limit or restrict the right of members on all sides of the House to pose questions to the ministry in general, or particular ministers on this or any subject, provided it is within the minister's competence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we wish to indicate our agreement to the procedure just proposed. However, can Your Honour make it clear how many will be able to speak on the question of privilege after the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has spoken?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, I have no way of knowing that at the moment. I will have to exercise some judgment as to the extent to which that will go on. However, there are other hon. members who have given me notice of questions of privilege and motions under various Standing Orders. They certainly ought to be recognized in order to comment. Beyond that, I will have to make some judgment as to how far we ought to go before we commence the question period.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling oral questions I might ask the indulgence of the House in order to refer to a matter which I am sure will come as no surprise to hon. members. I have received notification of an application under Standing Order 26, and several notices of questions of privilege and others relating to the subject matter of a proposed motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). The circumstances will give rise, I am sure, to questions during the question period which could be beginning at this moment. It will also give rise to technical problems about whether the House is entitled to ask questions of a parliamentary secretary when the minister to whom he or she is the parliamentary secretary is present in the House.
I am sure it will be no surprise to hon. members to learn that I have also received notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). It might solve some of the procedural and substantive problems associated with this most interesting matter if the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River were to be given the consent of the House to proceed with his question of privilege at this moment as opposed to three o'clock. Perhaps it can be understood that in so doing, whatever time is absorbed in participation in that discussion by members on both sides of the House, it will be my obligation to safeguard 45 minutes of questioning for members of the House after the question of privilege has been resolved in one way or another. Is there unanimous consent that we proceed in this manner?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Baldwin:: Just to make it quite plain with regard to the right of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a result of an article in this morning's Montreal Gazette which claims that I was leaked information on the November 18 budget and that I passed this information to businessmen.
Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny this. It is totally false. The story in the Gazette asserts that I said I had six weeks' advance knowledge from the office of the Minister of Finance that there would be a removal of the excise tax on boats in the November 18 budget. I had no such knowledge. I never had communication with the minister's office on the substance of the budget either before, on or after November 18 and, as the records of this House reveal, the November 18 budget did not propose to remove such a tax; it proposed to implement this tax.
As a result of the budget, Bill C-40 was introduced on December 2. It included a clause which would enact this tax. Like several members on all sides of the House, I made strong representations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), to other ministers and to some of their officials that the new tax on boats be reduced. From their response, I, like other members, came to the conclusion that the government would agree to a relieving amendment. On January 28 the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) proposed an amendment to Bill C-40 that went even further than I had expected: it removed the tax altogether.
July 24, 1975

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the story in the Gazette is incorrect in its description of the stages of our budgetary procedures, of my particular knowledge-or lack thereof- of the contents of the November budget and, indeed, of the very substance of the budget. This article is either the result of gross incompetence by the reporter or of malicious intent of the worst order.
In anticipation of the likelihood that it was merely incompetence, I have asked the Gazette to publish a retraction and apology. If they fail to do so, I can only conclude that it was malicious. If there was malicious intent, then there are serious implications for all members of this House, for this House cannot permit false, unfair, unbalanced or defamatory accounts of its proceedings; and I repeat once more that one of the most important errors in the offending story is its miscomprehension of the stages of our budget procedure. This House cannot permit such accounts to be published without taking measures to protect itself. If such offending material is allowed to be disseminated, the institution as a whole will be brought unjustly into disrepute and we will be prevented from performing our constitutional duties.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to pursue a newspaper if it has merely been the victim of an incompetent employee, and I would suggest that Your Honour defer your ruling until tomorrow. However, if the Gazette refuses to make a retraction tomorrow, and thereby makes it clear that this false and misleading story was published as a result of conscious and malicious intent, and if you find there has been a prima facie breach of privilege, I would propose then to move:
That the article in the Montreal Gazette concerning the member for Kenora-Rainy River, published July 24, 1975, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has also given the Chair notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege concerning statements or alleged statements made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid).


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, before commenting specifically on the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, may I ask, on a procedural point, whether it is clear that I am able to respond as we do ordinarily to statements on motions?


An hon. Member:: No way!


Mr. Speaker:: I think I made it clear that the hon. member was given consent to raise his question of privilege at an extraordinary time. I indicated that if there were other members who wished to contribute to the discussion of this question of privilege, I would hear them at this time. If the hon. member has some contribution to make to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I will hear him now.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To deal with the hon. member's statement, may I say I was a little disappointed that he did not refer to the proceedings which had taken place in a standing committee of this House, specifically on March 6, 1975, before the Standing Committee on
Privilege-Mr. Reid
Privileges and Elections. The hon. member was the chief witness appearing on behalf of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and at one point he stated:
Let us take a specific example of a change that was made in the budget, which was a change in the taxation on boats. There was to be an excise tax on boats. It was removed.
The hon. member then went on to refer to a great lobby which had been mounted and said that various people had spoken to the minister. He then said:
It seems to me that when a member of parliament has access to that kind of information-
Namely, that the tax was to be removed.
-which allows him with greater certainty to arrange his affairs to possibly take advantage of a change, it is the kind of conflict of interest that we must seriously consider in the green paper.
In giving testimony before that committee, the hon. member, for example at page 12:12 of the proceedings, made it very clear when he said:
I know that in my activities as member of parliament for Kenora-Rainy River I come into a great deal of information which is confidential.
At another point he stated:
I know from my own experience that kind of conflict of interest has happened to me in my role as a backbencher simply because I paid a great deal of attention to a department at a particular point in my parliamentary career. As a result of doing that, I was able to obtain a great deal of confidential information, both from the government and from outside people who were affected by the decisions of that department.
I read that into the record because I feel it is very pertinent to our discussion today which has been brought on by the account in the Montreal Gazette. I suggest that in previous evidence the parliamentary secretary made it very clear that he was privy to confidential information. I think it is important that this House be made aware whether the parliamentary secretary was in fact made aware that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was going to amend the excise tax legislation by removing the boat provision that had been proposed in both the May 6 budget and the November 18 budget. I believe the House should be made aware whether the parliamentary secretary was given forewarning of that amendment to the budgetary legislation and, if so, at what time. The Montreal Gazette report states that it was made some six weeks in advance.
I believe that the House should be made aware whether the parliamentary secretary misused that information. Did he in fact convey that information, as the Montreal Gazette story indicates, to those who could benefit from the information? I ask this because it has long been a principle of parliamentary government that members participating in the House of Commons, certainly at budget presentation time and when dealing with budgetary legislation arising from the budget, must keep any suggestion of conflict of interest to a minimum. This ensures that persons in the civil service, the House of Commons or the private sector do not have the opportunity to profit, directly or indirectly, from knowledge of changes in the incidence of taxation. Clearly, this was a significant change made to the excise tax bill by amendment.

July 24, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Reid
Ministers deliver their budget speeches, and any amendments that the minister may think fit thereafter, in a spirit of confidentiality. For example, budget speeches themselves are usually delivered in the evening to avoid any possible effect on the stock market. The tradition of secrecy ensures that all Canadians will be kept at the same advantage or disadvantage with respect to any budgetary matter, and that any announcement will be made first in this House and not privately to those who rightfully have no access and should have no access to that information. I suggest that budgetary secrecy is essential to guarantee to all taxpayers that no group can escape its share of taxation, and that in particular those whom they have elected to represent them in the House of Commons cannot escape laws approved for everybody.
I refer Your Honour to a statement of this principle and its consequence in Dawson's "The Government of Canada". He writes:
The necessary practice of keeping all budget provisions a close secret


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I do not think he need argue the sanctity of budget secrecy. That seems to me a matter that is generally agreed to by all members of the House; there is no disagreement there. The point raised by way of a question of privilege is that no budget secrecy was involved but, rather, in respect of legislation which took place after the budget. That may or may not be the case. I have been asked to reserve judgment until tomorrow. I wonder if the hon. member would direct himself to that point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The point is not only a question of budget secrecy but also the importance of keeping any tax change secret, and I would suggest that the two are one and the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The parliamentary secretary has referred to what he regards as untrue allegations in the Montreal Gazette. I believe this goes much further than the statement made by the parliamentary secretary. Certainly, the testimony he put before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and in an indirect way also put before the Montreal Gazette reporter, as reported, is an unfair reflection on members of this House. I refer to the report in the newspaper and I quote from it as follows:
We put on a lobby, and we knew about six weeks or so before it was announced that it (the tax) was coming off the boats but not the motors.
Later, the parliamentary secretary is reported to have said that inside information on confidential material is widespread, and "This happens all the time with members". As a final touch, he declared that he informed those concerned in his constituency of the budget details which concerned them.
I believe three aspects of this situation relate to the privileges of all hon. members and bear closer examination. First, the House cannot let go unchallenged the charge that all hon. members have access to information which they may not legally or constitutionally possess. This statement is untrue and defamatory and the parliamentary secretary should have the opportunity, before a committee, to explain or withdraw his statement.
[Mr. Stevens.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Second, did the Minister of Finance in fact break his oath of secrecy and violate his constitutional obligation to maintain silence until budget night, and did this breach of secrecy then lead the parliamentary secretary to repeat and magnify the offence by reporting the information to those in his constituency who were in a position to profit directly? Third, does the Minister of Finance make a habit of revealing secret budget information to government backbenchers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If so, to what extent is the budget confidential, and how is that confidentiality protected? Mr. Speaker, I will wait upon your instructions, but because of this background, at the appropriate moment I would like to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for further study; and if now is the appropriate time for my motion, I would be pleased to move it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour knows, I gave notice of my intention to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 26, but following what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) had to say-and I listened with interest and care-I would inform Your Honour and the House that today I have no intention of moving that motion. I will reserve judgment. Depending on what is published in the Montreal Gazette tomorrow, I will decide whether that course of action will be required at that time.
On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to say that I welcome what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had to say on this very important question. In substance, I agree completely with the procedural steps he has recommended to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member has categorically denied what I think are the essential points at issue in this matter, namely, on the one hand that he had any access to the details of the budget before it appeared, and on the other hand that he not only did not have that information but he did not convey it in any way to anyone. The hon. member has stated that he expects an unequivocal apology or withdrawal of the charges which were made in today's Montreal Gazette, in that newspaper tomorrow and upon failure to do that, if I understood the hon. member correctly, he intends to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. As I say, we agree with that as being the entirely honourable course of action under the circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The only point I would add at this time is, depending on what is contained in the newspaper tomorrow, and depending on whether or not certain other matters remain unclarified before the House rises tomor-
July 24, 1975

row, if we still believe there are a number of other issues that require at least clarification, specifically the reference made to a letter that was alleged to have been sent by the hon. member to certain businessmen-we may want to know whether that was done, the date of the letter, for example, and its contents. The House has a right, certainly, in terms of the knowledge we have up to this point, to expect such information to be made available.
As I say, we accept the procedural steps the hon. member has recommended and suggested that he will be taking, and depending on the release and disclosure of information we think is important, we may or may not decide to refer other questions to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections tomorrow, and may or may not decide to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 26.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is evident that the prudent course to follow is to reserve judgment on this matter until tomorrow morning. I might say that hon. members should give some consideration, in the interim, to the fact that if it were to be suggested to the House, or if the Chair is to be asked to leave it to the House to decide whether or not a matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, the substance of that matter should be fairly clearly defined. A motion which includes a hypothesis and the words "that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections", obviously is no guidance to the Chair. It must be clear whether one is talking about the conduct of the newspaper or the conduct of the hon. member, among other difficulties. Members ought to be forewarned that whatever conduct, practice or experience they wish referred to the standing committee should be clearly defined in any motion.
In the meantime, I would think it only fair that the notice of motion I have received from the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on questions of privilege, and the notice of motion, pursuant to Standing Order 26, received from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) should stand until tomorrow morning. We would reserve to those members the rights they ordinarily would enjoy pursuant to those notices.
There is, of course, nothing to prevent other hon. members, if they so desire, in the interim providing the Chair with notice of motion of questions of privilege which I would hope would be in specific terms in respect of the circumstances of this particular matter. There is, of course, always the other matter that hon. members ought to consider, which is that the door is open at any time for any member of the House to make specific allegations or charges against another member of the House for his misconduct, if it seems advisable to that hon. member to support it with his own allegations, with the usual consequences. Those are areas which hon. members ought to consider. In the meantime, all outstanding notices of motions on the subject to which I have referred will stand over for further consideration tomorrow.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since Your Honour referred to the fact that any motions should be in specific terms, I should mention that I would
Oral Questions
be quite prepared to move my motion in specific terms at the present time, if that would be in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I only issued that as a bit of warning. I think it is advisable that the matter stand over until tomorrow, at which time if there is a motion, depending upon the events of tomorrow, and the hon. member wants to move it, if he would be at liberty to do so at that time.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether there would be the right to ask questions. The things that I thought were unsaid today are, what did the hon. member say in his conversation with Mr. Hamilton of the Gazette? Was that conversation taped? Where is the tape, if there is one, and will it be procured? Those things were left unsaid. Will we be permitted to ask questions when the question period is called?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having adopted an extraordinary procedure with the consent of the House, the procedure is that the House has until 3.25 for questions. There are other proceedings and questions of privilege which could be taken up in the ordinary course after the question period expires. The difficulty we face, on the point of order raised by hon. members, is that there is no procedure, in any of the precedents of which I am aware, whereby questions can be directed to a parliamentary secretary to a minister while the minister is present in the House. I have not been able to find any such precedent.
There is, of course, nothing to restrict hon. members asking questions of the ministry, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), members of the cabinet, or perhaps the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) in respect of alleged practices by the parliamentary secretary. But I would have to hear the question in order to determine whether it is in order. However, it might raise a curious problem if questions directed to any other ministers could be referred by those ministers to the parliamentary secretary himself; I don't know. That has not occurred; it is something for speculation at the moment.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker might I be quite direct and ask whether I have permission to direct a question or two to the parliamentary secretary, in order to save the time of the House. If I have permission to do that I might even ask the Government House Leader to leave for a moment in order to make it legal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On the assumption that I have such permission-

July 24, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr, Speaker:: With all due respect, I am afraid that is a wrong assumption. I would think a question would have to be directed to the President of the Privy Council and it would be for him to decide whether the question ought to be directed to him while he was in the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Government House Leader whether his parliamentary secretary learned from the office of the Minister of Finance that the tax legislation which followed the budget would be changed and that he learned this between the date of the budget in November and the date on which the tax change was announced in the House on January 28, and whether the parliamentary secretary communicated this information that the tax change would be made to his constituents in their respective positions.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, since I have no personal knowledge of this I would ask that the question be referred to my parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


John Mercer Reid: The answer to the first part of the question, as to whether I received any information from the office of the Minister of Finance, is no. I obtained my information-I do not really consider I should call it hard information but rather an impression-after about two weeks of talking to officers in the various departments while lobbying the case I was trying to make. I came away with the impression that there would be a decision to do something about the tax on boats. Having obtained that impression-and I must say nobody came to me and told me at any time that this matter was in hand or was going to be done; it was simply an impression I had-I communicated to those people who had been in touch with me on dealing with budget Bill C-40 that indeed I had as my opinion, after lobbying the various departments and various ministers involved that there was a chance or a possibility that the tax would be dealt with and that probably it would be changed in some way. I was not able to define precisely and exactly what would happen.


ME. REID-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH CONSTITUENTS ON TAX CHANGES ON BOATS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council in order to keep the procedure straight. Did the parliamentary secretary communicate this information to firms in his constituency in writing, and will the President of the Privy Council table that correspondence in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I call upon my parliamentary secretary to continue this conversation?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it might be appropriate to assume that questions on this subject directed to the President of

the Privy Council are going to be answered by the parliamentary secretary.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the representations that I received from my constituents were in two categories. There were those that were given to me personally when I was in my constituency, those that were telephoned to me, and there was one representation made to me in writing as of December 3, 1974. I replied to that on December 19, 1974. If Your Honour would wish it, I would be happy to table this correspondence at the present moment.
For the edification of hon. members, perhaps I might read from the last paragraph of my letter which deals with the opinion which I expressed. It reads as follows:
I have spoken to the Department of Finance officials as well as the minister, and I understand they are likely to relieve the excise tax against boats, although not on motors. When the situation becomes clearer, I'll be in touch with you again.
The next correspondence I had was on January 30, when I reported to them what had happened on January 28 when the Minister of Supply and Services moved appropriate amendments that had been accepted by the House. If you wish, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to table the correspondence immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be my pleasure to extend that privilege to the hon. member. However, I can only extend it to the President of the Privy Council.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I table this correspondence on behalf of my parliamentary secretary.


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Who in his department knew that this tax change was going to be proposed before it was announced in the House on January 28, who besides him had that knowledge?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of representations and speeches from both sides of the House, both during the budget debate following the budget of November 18, as well as during the debate on amendments to the excise bill-I think hon. members can check those debates to see that the representations were made from both sides of the House and they were numerous-I asked my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, to present on my behalf an amendment on January 28 which relieved the tax from being imposed on boats as opposed to motors. I can say that to the best of my knowledge no advance notice of that amendment was given to any member of parliament, apart from those members who hold office in the Cabinet, who, of course, had to approve that amendment before my colleague submitted it on my behalf to the House.
July 24, 1975

As to who in the Department of Finance would have known of my intention to present that amendment, it would have been limited to officers in the taxation division of the department. I am not in a position to advise the Leader of the Opposition as to who actually would have had knowledge of that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question of real relevance to the matter. The parliamentary secretary referred to information he received from officials of the Department of Finance. Does the Minister of Finance not consider it appropriate that he should have inquired, or at least should certainly now inquire, as to who were the officials in his department from whom the parliamentary secretary obtained the impression that these changes would probably be made, an impression that gave him sufficient certainty to write to firms engaged in this business in his constituency, a certainty as to the changes of policy to be made, thereby perhaps giving them an enormous advantage over their competitors?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River may or may not have received an impression from officials of the Department of Finance. That I do not know.


An hon. Member:: He said he did.


John Napier Turner: What I want to say to the hon. member is that no public servant in the Department of Finance would have known with assurance that any amendment would be proposed in the House until I, as Minister of Finance had approved it, and, even more important, until my colleagues in the Cabinet had approved it. It is only after that that it became a governmental decision on my recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: When was the amendment drafted?


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MINISTER AND PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO PRESIDENT OF PRIVY COUNCIL CONCERNING TAX CHANGE ON BOATS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance indicate whether at any time he discussed with the parliamentary secretary the possibility of making the amendment which appeared on January 28?


John Napier Turner: I discussed that amendment in response to representations from at least 50 members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I did not ask about the 50 members. Was one of the 50 members the parliamentary secretary?


John Napier Turner: I cannot distinctly recall that.
Oral Questions


DATE OF DRAFTING AMENDMENT CONCERNING TAX ON BOATS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the Minister of Finance indicate when the amendment was drafted, how many days prior to January 28?


John Napier Turner: I will find out. If the matter goes to the standing committee, of course that information will be provided. I do not have the information at my fingertips.


MR. REID-DEGREE OF CERTAINTY ABOUT TAX CHANGE ON BOATS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. On grounds that the disclosure of amendments to a budget in principle is not at all different from disclosure of budget details, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary what degree of certitude he had that the knowledge he possessed was concerning a change in the budget? He wrote about it in December although it did not come until January. Was he totally convinced that the change was coming and, if so, with what sense of certitude did he disclose that conviction?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, after lobbying ministers for changes in legislation and talking to officials, it has always been my impression that I can tell pretty well whether or not a government is going to move on something. If I were not able to operate on that basis, I would be a pretty ineffective member of parliament. I would say to the hon. member who posed the question that my certitude was to the extent that I was prepared to bet two bottles of scotch that I was right and he was wrong. So I would say that as a result of the lobbying which I had done among members on all sides and officials of the department, I was reasonably certain of it because of the pressure that was being put on.
I might say, in answer to that kind of question, that there was a discussion of this very operation in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as recorded at page 15 of the issue from which the hon. member for York-Simcoe quoted. I want to read a brief quotation to make my point. It reads:
I for one on that very precise example said to various people, the Minister is going to withdraw this excise tax provision. And I had no confidential information whatsoever. It was just a good guess on my part, an intuition.
That was said by an hon. member who sits on the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: So I think that those of us who represent similar constituencies, and who had lobbied hon. members and talked to the departmental officials, had a very good idea of what was going to happen.

July 24, 1975
Oral Questions


MR. REID-POSSIBILITY OF CONVERSATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OFFICIAL CONCERNING TAX CHANGE ON BOATS-REQUEST FOR NAME
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question for the parliamentary secretary. May I say, with respect, that I think the difference is pretty fundamental.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The parliamentary secretary is quoted in the press-and he may want to deny that, and part of what was said also-that he had "insider knowledge" which quite conceivably could be obtained only by a parliamentary secretary or a cabinet minister who had more direct access certainly than the rest of us have to Department of Finance officials. It seems to me that that is an important difference between people who sit in the House either as ministers or parliamentary secretaries, and people on this side of the House or backbenchers on the other side of the House. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he had a direct conversation with what he would regard as a knowledgeable official in the Department of Finance on the subject under discussion. If so, would he give us the name of that official and the precise information that was given to him?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I had no direct information at all and I think that should be perfectly clear. I also would mention that backbenchers on this side of the House often feel that backbenchers on the other side have more information on what the government is going to do than we on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: The other point that should be made perfectly clear is that in the discussions in the standing committee when we were talking about conflict of interest I referred to my actions as member of parliament for Kenora-Rainy River, making representations on behalf of constituents who elected me; it has been my experience that a parliamentary secretary carries no weight at all with the ministry in many cases, and no weight at all with a department in obtaining information. Indeed, the correspondence I have had with everybody on it-which is certainly going to be open-has been done on my personal stationery as a member of parliament and conversations, phone calls and whatnot were made as a member of parliament. I was not introduced and have never introduced myself in my discussions with officials at any time with the temporary title which I bear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: The Prime Minister informs me that the axe falls on September 15 when my appointment runs out! I want to emphasize again to the hon. member that nobody gave my any direct information. What I did have was the result of a series of conversations with officials in three departments who were all affected by this-Transport,

National Revenue and Finance. All I was able to find out with certainty, was what I was listening to in the House of Commons, that the pressure was such that the government would have to move on this particular thing because it was so obviously unjust and did not apply.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary. If I understand the hon. member correctly he is saying that his insider information-that phrase has been used-and his concern about conflict of interest-a phrase he also used-is absolutely no different for him or any particular subject matter under discussion in his judgment than it is for any other member on this side of the House. If that is the point he is making, there are at least a number of us who might be skeptical about it. Would the hon. member provide to members of the House the names of the three departmental officials in the three different departments with whom he had conversations on this subject?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of insider information, I think if members go back and read the testimony of the Committee on Privileges and Elections of March 6, 1975, the point I was making was that members of parliament, by their very nature, have inside information that is not available to the general public. I meant insider information only in that sense. Those of us involved in the governing process do have information which is not available to everybody in the community.
Concerning the names of officials, according to my files I have the name of only one official who was called, not by me, but by an officer in my employ and I am prepared to table in the House-if the House should wish it-a copy of the memorandum prepared for me by my staff which might be of some assistance. It is dated November 21, 1974.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree that the President of the Privy Council shall be in a position to table that memorandum?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue but since he is behind the curtains, I will ask the parliamentary secretary, unless the Minister of National Revenue is willing to resume his seat. He is back.
Now, I would like to know pursuant to which act the minister may deny a taxpayer the amount of an official receipt which has been issued by an officer registered in a political party according to the law, and thus prejudice his right by refusing the immediate and total tax refund to which he is entitled?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is really in the nature of a legal question
July 24, 1975

under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Elections Expenses Act.


MR. REID-INQUIRY AS TO INTERVIEW WITH MR. JACQUES HAMILTON OF MONTREAL &quot;GAZETTE&quot;
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, through the intervention of the President of the Privy Council could I ask one question of the parliamentary secretary? I should like to know if the parliamentary secretary had an interview with Mr. Jacques Hamilton of the Montreal Gazette subsequent to an appearance before the standing committee and did he say to Mr. Jacques Hamilton the words which appear in the Montreal Gazette of today's date in quotations, the following:
"We put on a lobby." he said, "and we knew about six weeks or so before it was announced that it (the tax) was coming off the boats but not the motors."


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, that quotation is, I believe, taken from the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. If it is not, then I may well have said it. The discussion I had with Mr. Hamilton of the Gazette had to do with the work of the standing committee. We were discussing at that time the problems of confidentiality and information that comes to members of parliament by virtue of their being members of parliament. On that basis, I gave one of the examples where members might have information that was available to them before others simply by dint of being there at that time and representing their constituency.


MR. FAULKNER-INQUIRY AS TO TELEPHONE CALL FROM PRESIDENT OF OUTBOARD MOTOR COMPANY IN PETERBOROUGH CONCERNING TAX CHANGE ON BOATS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State and ask if he received a telephone call from the president of an outboard motor company in the city of Peterborough within two weeks prior to the reading of the November budget in which the Secretary of State was informed that knowledge concerning the tax exemptions contained in Bill C-40 would be forthcoming and that the source of the information was revealed to the minister at that time. Can he confirm if he received such a telephone call and such information?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to check that out and get back to the hon. member. I did have representations from the Outboard Marine Corporation on the tax measure itself but that is not what the hon. member is asking. I will have to check it out.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he recalls a conversation with the Outboard Marine Corporation and if, during the course of that conversation, the minister was informed that this company had been informed that the tax exemptions were coming
Oral Questions
and that the source of the information was also revealed to the minister at the time?


James Hugh Faulkner: I do not remember that, Mr. Speaker. The thrust of the representation to me was to try and lobby the Minister of Finance to change the tax measure in my capacity as member of parliament for Peterborough. I do not remember the other dimension that the hon. member is talking about but it may have taken place. I will check that. I will telephone the individuals in question.


MR. REID-INQUIRY WHETHER INTERVIEW WITH MR. HAMILTON TAPED-POSSIBILITY OF PRODUCING TAPE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to tell the House now when he had an interview or when Mr. Hamilton interviewed him and was that interview or discussion between him and the newspaper reporter, taped? Has he asked for the production of that tape since this article appeared this morning in the Montreal Gazette?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I believe there were two telephone conversations with Mr. Hamilton; whether he taped them or not I am not aware. If he did so, he did it without my permission. I have not asked for a transcript of what notes he used.


MR. REID-REQUEST FOR NAMES OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS WITH WHOM TAX CHANGE ON BOATS DISCUSSED
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary. He may not have that information today. Would he be prepared tomorrow to give us the full names of all people with whom he had discussions in departments prior to that change in the tax measure? I agree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party that if there is a leak from a tax measure prior to the measure being brought to the House and the knowledge of the people, the same principle applies to that as to a leak of the budget. Would he give us the full names and be prepared to answer, with a statement on motions, these questions: what conversations did he have with those people; what did those officials say to him at that time; and, what disclosures did he make as a result of those conversations?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have already tabled the correspondence, the only piece of correspondence with the person who made representation to me about this. I cannot go beyond that. In addition, I have also tabled the document that was referred to concerning the telephone call made by a member of my staff on my behalf. I will look into my files, to see if, indeed, there are any records of representations that I made to other ministers, or to other departmental officials. And if I have such record I will be happy to make it available to the House. I do not know, from glancing at my files this morning, whether that information was kept.

July 24, 1975
Oral Questions


MR. REID-DATE OF DISCUSSION WITH DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIAL CONCERNING TAX CHANGE ON BOATS REFERRED TO IN LETTER OF DECEMBER 19
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I raised that question because, in the letter the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, wrote on December 19, 1974, appears this paragraph:
I quite agree with you that the provision ought to have applied to snowmachines. I have spoken to the Department of Finance officials as well as the minister, and I understand they are likely to relieve the excise tax against boats, although not on motors .. .
That letter was addressed to Mr. Garth N. Nelson, president of Nelson's Leisureland. I ask the parliamentary secretary these questions: when did you have this discussion, and what was said in that discussion which led you to write that letter and make that clear prediction?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wrote the letter on December 19. That is the date on the letter. It was the result of fairly intensive work I had done in a short time, and I made a judgment as to what I thought would happen. My constituent had come to me and asked me what I thought was going to happen. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. It was strictly my opinion. He did not, incidentally, believe me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: He did not believe me. I think I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that I had spoken to the minister in the House, to tell him how unfair I thought this tax was on the small boat manufacturers of my constituency and on the retailers and marine operators in my county, and I did so in company with a large number of hon. members from both sides of the House.
It seems to me, if any constituent asks me to give my impression of what is likely to happen in the House of Commons, that I am not doing my duty as a member of parliament if I deny him the benefit of that opinion.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister provide the House with information about his activities relating to the disastrous fire which struck Springhill; what actions will he take, or what will his department do, in co-operation with other departments, to assist in the revitalizing of the business community of Springhill? May I thank the minister for the aggressive role he has taken in helping the people of the stricken community.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer with as much detail as I can within the limits of the question period, and follow up with a more detailed answer later.

Reference has already been made to consultations with the Solicitor General, with a possible view to obtaining a small and medium security addition or part of the penitentiary service for the area. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I have discussed the early start of local initiative programs, ahead of normal starting dates, so that people can be employed immediately. Last night I met Mr. Kent of Devco, not in any official capacity, but because of his knowledge of these matters. The minerals exploration agreement which we have with Nova Scotia permits sums to be assigned, to determine whether new mining ventures can be undertaken in communities like Springhill. In addition, I have one incentive case before me at present, of which I think the hon. member is aware. I will ask its consideration to be speeded. I have been waiting for word from the government of Nova Scotia following their cabinet meeting on Tuesday, to see what specific requests, if any, they will make, and I will keep the hon. member advised.


MR. REID-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF LETTER OF DECEMBER 19 CONCERNING TAX CHANGES ON BOATS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council and, through him, to the parliamentary secretary. What did the parliamentary secretary mean by these words in the letter which he wrote on December 19 to Mr. Garth N. Nelson, one of his constituents:
I have spoken to the Department of Finance officials as well as the minister-
What did he mean? Did he mean that he spoke for a deputation, in parliament? Does he mean something like that, or does he mean that he interviewed officials and the minister on this subject?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With due respect, it seems to me that the parliamentary secretary just answered a similar question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North.


MR. REID-SUGGESTED CONSULTATION ON TERMS OF REFERENCE OF QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, to the President of the Privy Council. As the parliamentary secretary suggested, very properly, that in certain circumstances the general terms of this matter ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, may I ask the President of the Privy Council, because of the importance of the terms of reference, to consult others on this side of the House as to the proper terms of reference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the question raised by my parliamentary secretary, he was referring to an article in the Montreal Gazette, which made certain allegations, namely, that my parliamentary secretary had access to budget secrets before the budget was brought down. He
July 24, 1975

properly raised a question of privilege in that connection. It is not the parliamentary secretary who is under investigation; it is the Gazette.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are wrong.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State of Canada.
The province of Ontario has recently announced a $750,000 grant for the promotion and design of learning material made in Canada. I shall quote an article, by Mr. Pascal Barette, which appeared in Le Droit on last July 22:
Out of this amount $250,000 will be specifically earmarked to meet the requirements of French schools in learning aids.
Will the minister tell this House whether or not, within the framework of the official languages program, he has had discussions with his provincial counterpart regarding federal participation in this program, the amount of federal contribution and the terms of the agreement?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have had discussions. I am anxious, on behalf of the federal government, to participate. The federal contribution will match the provincial contribution, which will mean a contribution of $250,000 in the 1975-76 fiscal year. I have been anxious to ensure that the contribution should be earmarked for Canadian-owned publishing firms. We want them to be given preference and we are still negotiating this with the province of Ontario.


FINANCE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On July 4 I asked the minister to look into the matter of banks granting farm improvement loans, small business loans and fisheries improvement loans, in accordance with the act. Since that date I have learned that the situation is much worse than I thought. Has the minister made inquiries and given any instructions to the banks?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that I signed a letter which is to be sent to the hon. member a day or so ago. I hope he gets it.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I have not yet received it, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE


ALLEGED DUMPING OF FOREIGN STEEL IN NOVA SCOTIA- REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue, and follows the written memo I sent him on Friday, a copy of which went to the Minister of Labour, to do with press reports concerning the dumping of foreign steel in Nova Scotia. Has the minister any further information on the subject, as the steel industry in Nova Scotia faces difficult times, particularly as the Sydney steel plant has laid off many workers? Can he enlighten us and ascertain if steel is coming in at cut rates?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I received the hon. member's representation, another from his colleagues, and also one from my colleague who is responsible for the Department of Labour, to do with this matter. So far, no formal complaint has been lodged under the anti-dumping legislation. My officials are in touch with companies or in the course of getting in touch with them, to see whether they wish to institute proceedings under the anti-dumping act. I asked my officials to treat this as a matter of urgency, and to expedite it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Next week there will be a meeting of 35 nations in Helsinki. We in this House have no idea whatsoever as to the stand that the Prime Minister will take on behalf of Canada, there having been no day set aside for the purpose of discussion and ascertaining the feelings of members of this House with regard to the tremendous problems affecting the peace of not only Europe, but of the world, which will come up. I therefore ask him whether he has received representations from organizations such as the Ukrainian Canadian Committee asking what stand Canada will take. I specifically ask the Prime Minister these questions, whether any treaty signed by Canada should include a definite commitment by all signatories, including the U.S.S.R., to implement within their jurisdictions the principles embodied in the universal declaration of human rights and, second, that in the establishment of boundaries in eastern Europe which are the result of conquest, that such establishment should be conditional on the principle of self-determination being accepted by the U.S.S.R. and the other nations. I ask what stand Canada is going to take on this matter. I speak on behalf of representations made to me for hundreds of thousands of Canadians of Ukrainian origin and also Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian origin. They are very concerned that no one knows whether Canada is going to stand up

July 24, 1975
Oral Questions
and insist on self-determination as provided for in the United Nations charter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member should put his question. I think he ought to limit representation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is something that should have been discussed in this parliament before the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Every time the cacklers cackle, I know I have touched something. I ask the Prime Minister what stand Canada will take in this regard.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as to the matter of representations, I do not believe I have received any specific representations about this conference I am attending next week. Of course, I have heard from Canadian groups of various origins about the subject many times. I have always responded to them and given them my views on it. They are well known.


John George Diefenbaker: What are they?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the conference itself, it has been in preparation for about two years. It has been discussed many times. I have answered many questions and I have had a press conference on it.


John George Diefenbaker: We are talking about parliament, not press conferences.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Parliament never deigned to ask me any questions on this.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I deigned to ask you a question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Every time I have been asked questions on foreign affairs, I have attempted to deal with them as best I could. I have no recollection of having been asked specific details about this particular conference. However, I have said in various places that Canada's role in this conference has been a very constructive one indeed. We are the ones who insisted on doing the most on what is known as the third basket, the principle of free movement of people's ideas and exchange of information between various parts of the world and between various groups. We have been successful in getting this and other principles accepted. I intend to sign the document next week. It is not a negotiating conference. There has been agreement reached by the various governments on the document which will be proposed in Helsinki next week. I will, of course, be pleased to table that document in the House when I return.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the kind of evasion we get when the Prime Minister deals with External Affairs. This is a matter affecting every Canadian. The answer is as uncertain as it is meaningless. What stand will Canada take before signing a treaty with regard to the right of self-determination being assured, as provided for in the United Nations charter, for Ukrainian

people, those of the Baltic states and others who are kept in captive nations behind the Iron Curtain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not evaded that question. I have told the right hon. member and the House the government's views on these subjects. I can tell the right hon. member that it is not the intention of the conference in Helsinki to change the frontiers of any countries which are now members of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Only five minutes remain in the question period. There are several hon. members seeking the floor. The right hon. member for Prince Albert and the Prime Minister have now absorbed close to 10 minutes on this subject. I feel we should go on to another matter.


John George Diefenbaker: We may have taken up 10 minutes, but we did not get any information.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to be yelled down by a bunch of baboons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the right hon. member has a point of order, he can raise it at 3:25.


FISHERIES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Fisheries). Since his announcement yesterday that our eastern ports will be closed to Russian ships, general public reaction seems to be that while this will cause the Russians some inconvenience, it will have little effect on reducing overfishing on the east coast and no effect whatsoever in dealing with the rapid depletion of our stocks of herring, salmon and halibut on the west coast, what further steps do the minister and the government intend to take in order to stop this steady decline of fish stocks, both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member read the statement that I made on this matter, it was obvious that our decision to close the port was very much related to violation and over-run of quotas. If quotas are respected, at least the resources will be protected. We do not think that this will be enough. At the next ICNAF meeting in September, we will insist on a 40 per cent reduction of effort. As for the
July 24, 1975

other measures which the hon. member is proposing, I do not know if he is referring to possible unilateral action. I am surprised that he, as a representative of a west coast constituency, would be advocating this before we have absolute guarantees that we can protect the salmon.


PROPOSED UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF JURISDICTION OVER MARINE RESOURCES TO 200 MILES OFFSHORE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that Mr. L. R. Day, Executive Secretary of the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, has pointed out that they have no evidence of the Russians over-fishing and he says it is not surprising because those countries which follow the ICNAF regulations do not, of course, report them, and since this matter is left entirely to the discretion of nations involved, I ask the minister whether it is not now time to do what Canada did with regard to the outmoded three mile limit and take unilateral action or join with the United States in taking bilateral action in order to extend our jurisdiction to the 200 mile limit or to the continental shelf in order that we may be able to police the situation which ICNAF has shown it cannot police?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: Before the hon. member and the hon. lady across from me applaud, they might question whether Mr. Day has been properly quoted. I cannot believe that a person who is the secretary of ICNAF would not know that the charges of violation made by Canada followed many hundreds of boardings over the past months with our inspectors having access to foreign ships fishing off our coasts in the ICNAF area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Minister speaks of impatience. I should like to remind him of a speech he himself made to ICNAF in Edinburgh on June 6, 1975 in which the minister began by saying: "We have had enough"? I remind him also of his words to the delegates at that conference:
Either the distant water fishing nations will co-operate with Canada or other coastal states in the orderly development of new coastal management regimes ... or else Canada and the other states ... will be obliged to consider other means of protecting their legitimate interests.
I am asking the minister what other measures he proposes to take to protect the legitimate interests of Canadian fishermen.


Roméo LeBlanc: I rejoice that the hon. member has been reading my speeches, too. I said then that we were impatient, and we still are. I also said we would take certain measures, and six weeks ago-it was not because of Mr. Moores' visit to Ottawa two days ago-I indicated that we would be closing ports if violations continued. In one case, violations were flagrant and continued, and we closed the ports. As for the other measures comptemplated, I indicated earlier that we are talking to those nations which share our concern; we are
Oral Questions
examining our options, and one lively option is that of a unilateral declaration.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY REASON FOR CHANGE OF CONTRACTORS FOR DEMOLITION OF BRIDGE AT PORT ROBINSON-POSSIBILITY OF COMPENSATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct two questions to the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. They have to do with the circumstances surrounding the awarding of contracts by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority calling for the demolition of bridge 12 at Port Robinson after a boat had hit the bridge-the peculiar circumstances surrounding the awarding of contracts. In the first instance, Bridge and Tank Company of Canada was awarded a contract to do the job but this was subsequently cancelled in favour of a contract awarded to McAllister Marine subject to some compensation for Bridge and Tank by way of salvage and scrap. What was the reason for the change in contractors and what form of compensation, if any, was paid to Bridge and Tank, of Hamilton, for loss of the contract and on what basis?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: As far
as the figures are concerned, I would have to check them because I do not have them with me. The reason no tenders were called was that the canal had to be cleared as quickly as possible. Under the arrangements which were made it took about 14 days before the canal was open. Otherwise, it would have taken two months or so. The Authority awarded the contract to a local firm to destroy the two towers and the span in the middle. The company could not do it, so they had to give the work to another firm. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority even sent its own crane from Montreal to help in getting the span out of the way. After 14 days it was possible to open the canal. But for these measures it would have been necessary to wait for a couple of months.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I want to thank the minister for his answer, subject to information which may be revealed to me subsequently. May I ask him, now, why it was necessary for the Seaway Authority to seek any contract for the demolition of the bridge when it is alleged it had the equipment, the personnel and the capability to do the job itself by means of the Hercules floating crane?


Jean Marchand: They came with the crane only to help the contractor. I am not sure that the Authority does have all the equipment necessary to do this job. The reason given me by the Seaway management is that they wanted to proceed as quickly as possible in order to free the canal for navigation. This is why they asked a firm which was already there to try to clean up the destroyed bridge. I will reply to any parts of the question which have been left unanswered after I get in touch with the Seaway Authority.

July 24, 1975
Business of the House TRANSPORT


POSSIBLE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO TRUCKING INDUSTRY AS A RESULT OF FREIGHT RATE FREEZE-DATE OF DECISION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the House whether the government has reached a decision with respect to the payment of compensation to the trucking industry arising out of the rail freight rate freeze? On May 23, I asked the minister a question about this matter and he indicated then that the matter was going before cabinet. On June 4, he told the House the matter was on its way to the appropriate committee. Can he now tell us whether a decision has yet been reached with respect to this matter?


Jean Marchand: Things are going exactly as I expected at that time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister assure the House that this matter will be resolved before his departure from the portfolio of Transport which, I understand, is immi-ment-before the end of the summer?


Jean Marchand: Personally, I hope so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dinsdale:: What is it you hope?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or to his parliamentary secretary? It pertains to the additional levy to be charged against all manufacturing milk deliveries from Canadian dairy farmers on or after July 1. Does the government intend that dairy farmers should bear the cost of deficits created as a result of the government's inefficient marketing methods when dealing with powdered milk?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the government House leader what he has in mind for the business during this part of the session, and when does he propose to move the interesting motion standing in his name on the order paper?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is ready to continue sitting until Bill C-66 is completed. I believe that on all sides there is general agreement that it would be desirable to give us the authority to pay the refunds before the recess.


Gerald William Baldwin: You have got it.


Mitchell William Sharp: The other piece of business with which we should like to make progress is Bill C-2. However, the government would be prepared to dispense with any further debate if we could get some sort of agreement as to the progress of that bill after we come back on October 14.


An hon. Member:: No way!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is precisely what you will not get.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I, in my usual capacity as peacemaker, endeavour to direct a question to the government House leader in this regard, bearing in mind that there are still 18 amendments at the report stage to Bill C-2 and these amendments are the property of the House in general, not only of the hon. members who move them, and that there may be some time taken up by this debate. There is discussion going on at the present time which might involve some movement on the part of the government as well as on the part of the opposition, but I should like to be quite plain and I put this question bluntly to the government House leader: does he not realize that Bill C-66 is now in the delicate position where several acts of consent and unanimous approval will be required if discussion of it is to be completed by tomorrow, which seems to some of us to be not unreasonable-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Gerald William Baldwin: -provided the NDP, which fairly recently discovered this measure, agrees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Without in any sense reducing our capacity for a strong and sustained attack upon this iniquitous measure, it is physically possible for it to be completed by some time tomorrow night. But I think we would have to have some understanding that we are not going to come back to debate Bill C-2 at the beginning of next week. That is the situation, and I put it to the government House leader quite categorically, accompanying the statement that we are prepared to work together to preserve our right to secure certain modifications to Bill C-2 and that we will work with the government in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order regarding the business of the House, I wonder whether I might put two questions to the government House leader. My first question relates to Bill C-66. In view of the statement made today by the minister's parliamentary secretary, that he knew a certain tax was going to come off because there was considerable opposition to it, does it not therefore follow, in view of the massive opposition to Bill C-66, that the minister is going to withdraw it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 24, 1975


Stanley Howard Knowles: If not, we shall have to continue our opposition.


John Edward Broadbent: We have no inside information on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other question relates to a matter that I raised with the government House leader on July 2, as noted at page 7170 of Hansard, having to do with the announcement in the budget speech that there would be legislation to increase the rate of return on existing Government of Canada annuities. On that occasion the minister indicated, in replying to my question, that there would be an explanation with respect to this matter before we rise for the summer recess. Since we might rise within a week or so, can the minister tell us what the precise plans are respecting these proposed improvements in government annuities?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, which I think was not meant to be taken very seriously, I hope that no member on the other side is sending out any letters suggesting that the excise tax is going to be lifted. However, while the Minister of Finance, if I may say, on a previous occasion said he would consider the representations that were made, he has made it quite clear, and so has the government, that this legislation must be approved.
On the second point, since giving the reply to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre I have talked with my colleagues and I am informed that legislation is required. It is now being prepared on an urgent basis and will be introduced after the recess, not before.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, before things get out of control I would like to get things straight about the proposal made recently by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that the House sit on Saturday to end up consideration of Bill C-66 before the summer recess.
I want to point out to the hon. member for Peace River that there is no indication that the sun will not shine next week and that we can come back, if necessary, to finish consideration of this bill. We have been expecting for at least two years legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The minister promised it would be taken into consideration, and he does not talk about it any more now. I would like to know what he intends to do with the bill, or at least with some of the amendments that the public is expecting.


Mr. Lawrence:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood-or perhaps I misunderstood-from questions and conversations that some of us had had with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) that he was going to table the multilateral agreement between the IAEA and the government of Argentina respecting safeguards for the CANDU nuclear reactor. I was hoping that he would do this today.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of that particular agreement in the English language only and I should like to get a French translation. But I will either
Business of the House
hand it to my hon. friend this afternoon or table it tomorrow.


Cecil Morris Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning the Standing Order 43 motion I proposed today, my colleagues and I in this particular corner of the House did not hear any nays. If there were negative votes, I cannot understand why they would not be voiced loudly. My motion was only sending congratulations to the first people of this country on the celebration of their centennial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cecil Morris Smith: As I say, I did not hear any nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour said that at 3.25 I would be permitted to raise a point of order. My point of order has to do with an answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that he had not had any correspondence with the Ukrainian-Canadian committee, and naturally, except on anything concerning a personal allegation, I believe him. But I would point out that the telegram sent to the Prime Minister and the copies sent to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) were dispatched from Winnipeg on July 22.
Your Honour said ten minutes had been devoted to this matter. All across this country, sir, and among 100 million captive peoples, there is deep concern over this conference, of which parliament knows nothing except, as the Prime Minister said, what he deigned to let the people know through press conferences. Press conferences do not take the place of parliament in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I asked him two questions; he is entitled not to answer. The first was with reference to boundaries being determined that were the consequence of conquest, where 100 million people who love freedom as you and I love freedom are denied the opportunity of self-determination. They are afraid another Munich is in the offing and they want parliament to place their views before the people. We have had no opportunity to do so.
This is the first time in all the years since Mr. Mackenzie King was prime minister that this House has not regularly had debates on external affairs. The Prime Minister answered me by speaking about something else. I have done my duty. I endeavoured to do something for those people who today are denied freedom and for those in Canada of various racial origin who have asked for action. All we have received in return is the contemptuous brush-off of a group of Liberal members who endeavoured to howl me down when I tried to place before the House something that touches the heart not only of those of various racial origin but of all Canadians who love freedom.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the point of order raised by the right hon. gentleman gives me an opportunity to say that I have had similar representations from various

July 24, 1975
Business of the House
groups in the country with respect to their concerns about the results of the security conference. Of course, a principal concern has been the possibility that boundaries which came into effect after the Second World War would somehow be rendered immutable or sanctioned in some way by this conference.
That objective has not been attained by those who sought it. The text indicates quite clearly that these boundaries are not immutable and that they are subject to peaceful change under the rules of international law. I have been able to assure my correspondents that their concerns will be met in the texts which will be proposed at the summit meeting. I understand the concerns, and they have been met very fully. The efforts have been resisted.
Because of the words uttered by the right hon. gentleman, I think it is worth saying that in the field of human contacts and the desire that there be a free movement of ideas and peoples as a basis of future detente, this concept has been recognized in the texts, so that in the future they can be used as a basis for further development in the movement of ideas and the movement of peoples. This is a further objective which has been sought by the groups to which the right hon. gentleman has referred.


Gerald William Baldwin: All you need now is an umbrella.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker, for the record I think it is worth pointing out to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that there was, indeed, some parliamentary debate on this subject when his seat-mate, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), the late, lamented member for Scarborough West, and myself were members of a delegation to the Interparliamentary Union specifically on this conference in Helsinki. I think it was in January or February of 1973. It was a unique occasion, when parliamentarians did have an opportunity to report on such a conference and issues involved, and to debate them at that time. So it was the subject of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) seeks the floor on a question of privilege. He will be heard just after questions on the order paper.


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, in both official languages.-Mr. Loiselle (Saint-Henri).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-411, to divide the calendar year into three parliamentary semesters.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for three fixed semesters of parliament in each calendar year, so that members of the House of Commons will know when parliament will be sitting and thus can better organize their time to perform the related duties of members of parliament, particularly with respect to their constituencies. It is also designed to put a heavy onus on the government to organize the work of the House so that adequate time can be given for debate and to ensure that end of session game playing with important legislation will cease.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,277, 2,330, 2,429, 2,436, 2,521, 2,765, 2,766, 2,778, 2,783, 2,819, 2,847, 2,851, 2,939 and 2,941.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 716 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Did the President of the Privy Council approve the decision made by the National Harbours Board as stated in the answer to Question No. 1,899 that Board Minutes respecting the delegation of some authority regarding day-to-day operations of the Port of Montreal to an Executive Committee is an "internal and not a public document" and, if so, on what date?
2.	Will the President of the Privy Council consider giving an opinion as to whether or not the National Harbours Board decision complies with the guidelines announced in 1973 by the government respecting the release of documents to Parliament?
3.	Have any extracts, excerpts, quotations, portions, citations, passages or any other selection of Board Minutes of either the National Harbours Board or the National Capital Commission been made public
July 24, 1975

in any form whatsoever since January 1, 1972 and, if so (a) by what agency (b) on what topic (c) in what format (d) on what date?
4.	Does the decision by the Minister of Transport to approve the decision of the National Harbours Board to keep such information respecting policy of the National Harbours Board, and involving public funds and publicly funded facilities secret, advance the government's stated objective of governing Canadians openly and, if so, to what extent?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer by the President of the Privy Council and the National Harbours Board is as follows: 1. No.
2.	The National Harbours Board decision does comply with the guidelines announced in 1973.
3.	Extracts of minutes of meetings of the board are made available to the courts for such action as the swearing in or dismissal of police constables or for the transfer of property but are not made public by way of any further distribution. All minutes of the meetings are available to the Minister of Transport.
4.	The National Harbours Board is responsible to parliament through the Minister of Transport. The board advises the minister on all policy matters which are felt to be in the public interest in fulfillment of its responsibility to parliament and the people of Canada, recognizing its role as a Crown corporation in competition for business with comparable organizations both within and outside Canada. The Minister of Transport determines the extent to which such policy matters should be made public and at what time in their development.


Mr. Firth: 1.	What was the dollar value of copies of Native art imported into the country last year?
2.	Is there legislation or is the government contemplating legislation that would protect Native artists and the general public from the importation and sale of authentic looking, but bogus Native art?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows: 1. According to Statistics Canada there is no such classification of imported goods as "bogus Native art". The classification of product information is received from the customs slips, the products being classified under such general headings as art and decorative ware, paintings and pastels made by hand, miscellaneous novelties, glassware, etc. To our knowledge, however, no copies of Eskimo art were imported into the country last year.
2.	There is no specific legislation either existing or contemplated governing the importation and sale of goods that imitate the style of Canadian native art. The present Intellectual Property Laws (Copyright Act, Industrial Design Act, Trade Marks Act, Patent Act) do not deal with this specific matter. However, any prepackaged products including authentic looking art bearing false origin statements would be considered as violating the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. In addition, any misleading representations as to the authenticity of such products would fall under the purview of the misleading advertising provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): In the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs estimates, how many of the listed (a) 301 departmental employees (b) 3,322 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation employees (c) 994 National Capital Commission employees earn between (i) $15,000 and $20,000 (ii) $20,000 and $25,000 (iii) $25,000 and $30,000 (iv) $30,000 and $35,000 (v) $35,000 and $40,000 (vi) $40,000 and $45,000 (vii) $45,000 and $50,000 (viii) $50,000 and more?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Capital Commission as follows: (a) The "301" in the Urban Affairs estimates represents man-years, not positions, and therefore cannot be broken down into salary ranges. As of March 31, 1975, there were 305 employees on strength in the ministry. A breakdown by salary range is as follows: (i), 41; (ii), 23; (iii), 23; (iv), 21; (v), 4; (vi), 1; (vii), 0; (viii), 0; (b) For positions filled by appointment by the Governor in Council, the following was their salary distribution at December 31, 1974: (i), $15,000-$20,000, None; (ii), $20,000-$25,000, None; (iii), $25,000-$30,000, None; (iv), $30,000-$35,000, None; (v), $35,000-$40,000, 3; (vi), $40,000-$45,000, None; (vii), $45,000-$50,000, 1; (viii), $50,000 and more. It is not the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to disclose salaries in detail greater than that given above, since these are matters of internal administration and the responsibility of the president and the board of directors, (c) (i), 62; (ii), 33; (iii), 19; (iv), 9; (v), 1; (vi), 1; (vii), None; (viii), None.


Mr. Francis: 1.	Were licences for the export of arms or any sort of war material to Greece granted since July 20, 1974 and, if so (a) to whom (b) for what amounts (c) on what dates?
2.	Were any of the contracts negotiated through the Canadian Commercial Corporation?
3.	Was the supply of materials to go directly to Greece and, if not, to whom were such arms assigned?
4.	Were conditions attached to the licences as to what theatre the materials could be used in and, in particular, were there restrictions made as to the use of such materials on the Island of Cyprus?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Four export permits have been issued for the export of non-offensive military equipment to Greece since July 20, 1974. (a) Since every application for an export permit under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act is treated on a commercially confidential basis, it is not the practice to reveal to whom such permits were issued, (b) The four permits issued were for a total value of $20,076.00. (c) One export permit was issued in November, 1974, two in January, 1975 and the fourth one in April, 1975.
2.	In one case, yes.
3.	These shipments were to go directly to Greece. However, out of four permits issued, two were used for the full amount authorized, one was partially used and the fourth one has not yet been used. The total value of non-offensive

July 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions
military equipment shipped to Greece since July 20, 1974 amounts to $5,253.00.
4.	No.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the criminal charges against Mr. Roosevelt Douglas, a landed immigrant from Dominica?
2.	Was he convicted and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were the charges (c) what was the sentence?
3.	What is his present status in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. Mr. Roosevelt Douglas was convicted under section 372 of the Criminal Code, for which he was sentenced on April 30, 1971, to an aggregate sentence of 913 days. He was released on bail on May 14, 1971, and resumed his servitude on June 21, 1973. Mr. Douglas is a landed immigrant, on parole until the date of expiration of his committal warrant, i.e., December 13, 1975. A deportation order was issued against Mr. Douglas and the Immigration Appeal Board has upheld that order.
3.	The status of Mr. Roosevelt Douglas in Canada is that he is a person under an order of deportation who is to be removed from Canada as soon as practicable in accordance with the direction of the Immigration Appeal Board. Because he is on parole from prison he remains within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General and cannot be removed from Canada until his parole expires in December, 1975.


Mr. Mazankowski: What was the passenger load factor on the (a) Boeing 747 (b) Lockheed L-1011 (c) Douglas DC 8 (d) Douglas DC 9 (e) Boeing 727 operated by Air Canada on regularly scheduled services in the years 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971 and 1970?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Air Canada advises as follows: Air Canada does not maintain records of passenger load factors by individual aircraft type. To provide this information would require an inordinate amount of clerical time with resulting costs.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For what reason was Econair formed?
2.	How large is its staff?
3.	(a) Who are the Directors of Econair and are they also employees of Air Canada (b) do they receive a salary from Econair in addition to their Air Canada salaries?
4.	What has been the size of the profits or losses of Econair since its inception?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. To operate travel services on behalf of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. The initial objective was to participate in the business of selling advanced booking charters.

2.	Venturex Ltd., as Econair is now known, has a total of 18 employees.
3.	(a) R. T. Vaughan, M. H. Cochrane, J. R. Drummond, R. H. Lindsay, J. H. Richer. All except Richer of CNR are employees of Air Canada. Also, Mr. Lindsay, was seconded from Air Canada and is a full time employee of Venturex. (b) No. They receive salaries only from their respective employers.
4.	For year end 1973, a loss of $521,710.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the Montmagny pier basin channel ever been dredged and, if so, (a) in what year (b) at what cost?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Yes (a)
1959, 1965; (b) $600 in 1959; $75 in 1965.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is it the intention of the government to bring in legislation or take any initiative in regard to the removal of junk automobiles which pollute our environment?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: The disposal of automobiles is a provincial responsibility. Nearly all provinces have introduced measures for assisting in the collection of derelict vehicles. Canada has at the present time, either proposed or operating, some 13 car shredding operations which are capable of handling the economically accessible obsolete vehicles and redirecting the recovered metal back into the industrial stream. The solid waste management branch of the Environmental Conservation Directorate of the department is presently assessing, on a national basis, the effectiveness of the present facilities and potential areas for additional conservation.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the purpose of the Department of Supply and Services contract number SZ05 KL 108-5-0031 (OSZ5-0111) for "Preliminary analyses of songbird data from Nova Scotia and design of an efficient statistically valid method based on the results of the analyses for further surveys."?
2.	On what date and how was this project advertised prior to the awarding of the contract to Mr. R. K. Ross?
3.	What other bids were submitted and by whom?
4.	On what date is the final work to be submitted and to whom?
5.	What are Mr. Ross's qualifications for the work he will be performing?
6.	What other work has he done for the government and what was the cost to the taxpayer, if any?


Len Marchand: 1. Contract SZ05 KL 108-50031 (OSZ5-0111) D.S.S. was issued on behalf of the Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment. The contract study was to assist in the improvement of design and analysis of the National Cooperative Breeding Bird Survey which has been carried out in Canada by
July 24, 1975

unpaid volunteers since 1967. Results of those surveys have been published annually in Canadian Wildlife Service progress notes 15, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. These surveys are a useful contribution to monitoring environmental quality across the country.
2.	The project was not advertised because a man of the required background and experience to undertake the work was available.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	The final report was received June 11, 1975 by both the scientific procurement officer D.S.S. and the scientific authority-Canadian Wildlife Service.
5.	Bachelor of Science in Biology, Queen's University; Master of Science, Dalhousie University, specializing in avian ecology, plus required background in statistics.
6.	Since June 1973-$19,100 in contracts and term employment to undertake various studies including design of an efficient aerial survey method for estimating numbers of geese; a study of invertebrates utilized by shore-birds in the Minas Basin; a survey of shorebird migration patterns in the Maritime provinces; analysis of beaver population data; and collection of field data on bird populations in Nova Scotia. The contract referred to in parts 1 to 4 was to analyse the data gathered in the summer of 1974.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,449, can the $8,600,000 best Department of Transport estimate of the cost of icebreaking services for the ports of the St. Lawrence River be broken into annual costs and, if so, what are they for the period given?
2.	Does such estimate include capital costs of icebreaker acquisition and, if not, for what reason?
3.	(a) What is the government's total capital expenditure to date since 1965 for icebreakers (b) how much of this, if any, can be attributed to the provision of services outside the St. Lawrence River?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
breakdown on an annual basis of the cost of icebreaking services for the ports of the St. Lawrence River is as follows: 69-70, $1,021,550; 70-71, $1,169,750; 71-72, $1,314,900; 72-73, $1,415,050; 73-74, $1,734,950; 74-75, $1,948,750; Total: $8,604,950.
2.	This estimate does not include the capital cost of icebreakers used in performing the icebreaking function because in government accounting, capital costs are written off in the year in which funds are appropriated.
3.	(a) The capital cost of icebreakers commissioned since 1965 is $48,844,000, (4 ships), (b) These vessels are used in the St. Lawrence River, Great Lakes, Gulf of St. Lawrence, around Newfoundland and in the Arctic and it would be difficult to pro-rate capital costs on such a diverse spread.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For each year since 1969, what classification of secretary was provided to a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada?
2.	What was the pay range for such classifications?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Since 1969, what was (a) the increase in pay one year over the other, in percentage (b) the total increase in pay for such secretaries?
4.	What was the total increase in pay of Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada since 1969?
5.	Is the government aware of the salaries paid to secretaries to Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States and (a) if so, what is the present rate of pay (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. ST-SEC 5 (formerly ST-8).
2.	Actual Period Involved	Pay Range	1969	October 1/68-October 1/69	* 7,807-$ 8,579	1970	October 1/69 October 1 '70	8,236- 9,051	1971	October 1/70-September 27/71	8,771- 9,639	1972	September 27/71 September 25/72	9,297- 10,217	1973	September 25/72 September 24 73	9,762- 10.728	1974	September 24/73- April 1 74	10,543	11,586April 1/74 December 2/74	11,043 - 12,086	1975	December 2/74 to date	11,871	12,9923.	Based on maximum of the range: (a)
Year
1971
1973
1975
(b) From October 1, 1969 to date-$4,413
4.	$26,000.
5.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Salaries of secretaries to the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, in common with those of all other secretaries in the Federal Public Service of Canada, are set in accordance with established government policy, which takes into account pay relativities outside the Public Service but within Canada only.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	How many houses for Natives were built at Pine Point, NWT, in 1974?
2.	How many houses (a) have been built (b) are being built (c) will be built in 1975?
3.	In each case, what is the relevant cost per house?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	None.
per cent Increase
5.5
6.5 6.0 5.0
12.6
7.5

July 24, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
2.	(a) 20 houses were built in 1970. (b) None, (c) None.
3.	The houses constructed in 1970 cost $26,000 each.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question Nos. 907, 1,571, 2,326 and 2,493, does the Department of the Secretary of State record on its monthly listings of new citizens the language in which the applicant requested the certificate to be prepared?
2.	Since January 1975, have the lists of new citizens with addresses in the Constituency of Vaudreuil indicated that those requesting certificates in English outnumbered those requesting certificates in French by more than six to one?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Yes.
2. Yes.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


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


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given the proper notice. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) a straightforward and uncomplicated question. Since the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had been aware of the existence of extended warranties on certain makes of automobiles and specific quality defects, and since the department had refused to inform the public of such hidden warranties, I asked the minister the following:
-can the minister inform the House why his department did not relay the information about these extended warranties to the public? Can he also tell us why Box 99 refused to inform consumers who specifically inquired about such warranties?
The minister proceeded to evade and obfuscate the issue by replying that I was mistaken in my statements, in that no letters were exchanged between his department and the car manufacturing companies on the matter. At no

time in my question did I imply or otherwise state that correspondence between the car companies and his department were relative to my question.
The minister went on to say that officials of his department were trying to obtain extremely important information in favour of the consumer and that the moment the information was obtained he would be pleased to make it public. I countered that the information had already been provided to his department by the Automobile Protection Association. The minister refused again to answer my question because, according to him, it was, and I quote, "based on false premises".
My point of privilege arises out of the fact that proof exists that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Box 99 were aware of existing hidden warranties. In fact, when the Automobile Protection Association-which, by the way, in a consumer protection group which operates with some assistance from the federal government-became aware of the existence of hidden warranties, Mr. Phil Edmonston of that association sent the material to Box 99 with a request that Box 99 provide the information to consumers asking for it. He released the information at the same time to the news media. This was back in mid-April; I think it was around April 15.
He then began to receive letters from consumers informing him that Box 99 was refusing to provide the necessary information on these warranties in order that the consumers might take action themselves in the small claims courts. At the same time, Mr. Edmonston was in constant contact with a Miss Mahoney and a Mr. Bourque, who staff the regional office of the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Montreal. On May 12, Mr. Edmonston drafted a letter to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs outlining the entire situation. Mr. Edmonston read that letter on the telephone to Miss Mahoney, who asked him not to send the letter but, rather, to give the department a few weeks in order not to endanger the goodwill basis under which these warranties were being extended, and also because there was some question of the legal position of the government with respect to releasing documents considered confidential by the automobile companies involved. Mr. Edmonston agreed to hold the letter.
After receiving no response from the department, Mr. Edmonston forwarded his letter to the minister. Mr. Edmonston later telephoned Mr. Lalancette, the minister's press attache, who indicated that the letter had been received about mid-June. Indeed, Mr. Edmonston received and holds a letter signed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs dated June 16 and received June 18 by the APA wherein the minister states that he received the APA letter on hidden warranties, that he was presently studying the problem with his department personnel and that he would communicate with Mr. Edmonston in the future. Furthermore, Mr. Edmonston telephoned the minister's executive assistant, Mr. Murray McBride, on July 22, 1975.


John Edward Broadbent: That explains it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. McBride indicated he would return the call, but he has not yet done so. In my resume I have
July 24, 1975

not mentioned the various news stories which have appeared on this matter. The minister said yesterday:
-the hon. member's question is based on false premises. That is why I have a negative reply a while ago.
This is either indicative of his ignorance of what is occurring in his department on this matter, or he is deliberately or inadvertently covering up the situation and misleading the House and the Canadian public. If Your Honour finds that I have a prima facie question of privilege, I would be prepared to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think what I said yesterday is still valid. In his first question yesterday, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) referred to information the department already knew in April 1975 and to the fact that the department refused to inform the public. Those are two assertions I find wrong, and that is why, in my answer, I told the hon. member that his questions were based on false premises.
Concerning the substance of the question, my department is certainly following up on that matter intensively, and it is absolutely not in the consumers' interest that I make a statement at this stage. That would rather be likely to prejudice their ultimate interests and, finally, I find it inappropriate and unacceptable for Mr. Edmonston instead of coming directly to me to seek information, to go through a member of the opposition to try build up a tempest in a teacup.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is evident that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the minister disagree on facts or interpretation. This would seem to be a matter of debate rather than a question of privilege. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR DEBATE
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the fact that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, an agency owned by the Government of Canada, has been supervising for more than a year the building of a nuclear reactor in Argentina even though the government has not yet finally negotiated safeguards intended to ensure that Argentina will not use the plutonium produced by the
Excise Tax Act
nuclear reactor for a nuclear explosion. There is an urgent need for this matter to be discussed in the House of Commons before parliament recesses and before any nuclear safeguard treaties are consummated.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the third time this week that the same urgent matter has been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 26. I indicated yesterday that the door was open for further questions on the matter if events transpired which changed the nature of the matter for discussion, or proposed discussion, so that critical questions were involved. Nothing has changed the general nature of this matter since yesterday.
The suggestion of the hon. member which, it seems to me, is self-defeating in respect of this notice of motion, is that the project has been under supervision by the federal government for over a year. If it has been under supervision by the government for that length of time, certainly on the face of it it is a matter which fails to have such critical proportions as to require the immediate attention of the House or the setting aside of our normal hours for debate.
Finally, I must also note that the hon. member suggested that a factor involved is the impending adjournment or recess of the House, if that is in fact a reality, and therefore this is a matter which places before the House some problems of critical proportions. Surely the hon. member realizes that if I were to apply that standard to every matter of national importance put forward under that condition as a subject for debate under Standing Order 26, it would be a rather anomalous and difficult situation for the House to deal with. For those reasons, I feel that special time ought not to be set aside for this subject matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 23, 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.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very important, as we move on in this debate, to summarize exactly the position of the opposition on this excise bill.


An hon. Member:: Be brief.


John R. Rodriguez: This has nothing to do with being brief. Mr. Speaker, we have said this excise tax is a regressive tax. We have said this time and time again, and I do not mind repeating it because having been involved in education for some time I know how necessary it is to repeat something time and time again to children. It all depends on the level of the sensitivity they possess in listening, in participating and in decision-making.
7906

July 24, 1975
Excise Tax Act
Why have we said that this tax is a regressive tax? We have said it is a regressive tax because it hits hardest a particular segment of the population. It hits hardest the segment of the population for which this government does not provide an opportunity to handle the regressive nature of this tax. For example, it hits very hard those Canadians who work. They do not all work in urban centres; many work in rural areas. Many members of the House are aware of this type of constituent. These people are hit hardest because they must use their vehicles to get to work. It seems to me there is no provision in this bill for these individuals to claim a rebate of the money they spend on this excise tax.
The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) said the other day that one of the government's reasons for bringing in this excise tax was that when they were considering how best to compensate persons who live on the east coast of Canada, in terms of the price of petroleum, they considered that if they placed a tax on all citizens of Canada it would be discriminatory to those who live in urban centres and do not own a car; the people who fall into that category are mostly poor Canadians and they would be subsidizing those who own and drive automobiles. Surely that is not a very good argument for the purpose of this bill, because the government, through the income tax system, has a way to compensate poorer Canadians who do not own cars and who may have to subsidize other Canadians. Surely a system could be designed, through an income tax measure, to ensure that such Canadians would not, in effect, subsidize other Canadians who own cars.
For whom, in fact, does the government provide a rebate in respect of this tax? It provides it to doctors and lawyers when in the pursuit of their work. I suggest that the miners in my area are just as important to the nation as are doctors and lawyers. I have often heard it said that if we had fewer lawyers we would be further ahead. I hear a comment from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) who is a lawyer. When I look around and see all the lawyers here, it seems to me there is a fraternity involved in preparing the laws of this country and therefore there might be a conflict of interest.
People in this country who live and work in areas such as mine, who must heat their homes for longer periods in the year, who must drive long distances to work, will be seriously hurt by this tax. I say it is an iniquitous tax. It is very unfair. That is the reason this party is fighting so vigorously against this juggernaut of a government that is trying to push through this measure. It seems to me that the income tax system ought to be used by a government to create equality of income in the society. The income tax system is a means by which we can try to remove some of the disparities that exist among Canadians. This kind of tax is regressive because in effect it does not do that; it makes the gap wider between those who have money, those who earn high salaries, and those who because of lack of ability or lack of opportunity earn less. It seems to me that in effect that is a good argument with which to condemn this bill as being iniquitous.
There is one other point I want to make. We have a country whose development was either deliberately

planned around the automobile or it was allowed to develop in that way. This country is very large and we have developed, as a society, around the automobile. We are a very mobile society and we have let the automobile industry make us more and more dependent on the automobile as a mode of transportation. The people are hooked, they are wedded to that means of transportation. To realize this one only has to look at the various social outlets in our society. We have the drive-in theatre, the drive-in restaurant, the drive-in bank and even the drive-in church. We notice the developments on the outskirts of cities where large shopping plazas are built, and in those shopping plazas one finds miles and miles of parking space provided for the benefit of those who use their cars to get out of the city to do their shopping. It seems to me that I have never seen a shopping plaza which would provide the opportunity for a public transit system, for buses to come right to the doorstep of the plaza. These plazas are self-contained and surrounded by huge parking lots, all in the process of encouraging the use of automobiles by the Canadian public.
Once having wedded the Canadian people to the automobile, the government moves in with taxes such as this one to suddenly try to persuade Canadians that they should not use automobiles for travel but, rather, should use the public transit system. We have pointed out time and time again that it seems the horse is being put before the cart. The government does not provide many of our small and medium-sized cities with funds with which to build fast, efficient and economic transit systems. I have pointed out that, in effect, by not doing so the government is deliberately creating a problem for many working Canadians without giving them the opportunity to solve the problem in a way in which the government finds acceptable, namely, public transit which is fast, efficient and economical. I believe the government should be condemned for that.
I sat around last summer listening to all the great speeches made during the election campaign when the government promised funds for municipal governments to provide public transit systems. The government has put on this excise tax without having first provided communities with the opportunity of establishing a transit system. This is the case in Sudbury and the surrounding areas.
It seems to me that this bill stinks, and I say that for very good reason. Indeed, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has said transportation is in a mess. When we start talking about public transit systems, it is rather interesting to note that we have embarked upon this kind of regressive taxation. For example, at present there is no passenger car on order by either the CNR or the CPR. The cars run by these two companies are decrepit and inadequate for a passenger service, yet not one passenger car is on order with any manufacturing company in North America.
It seems to me that the CNR is the only state-owned and operated railroad company in the world that has no railway cars ordered for the coming year. As I understand it, it will shortly be drawing up its winter schedule and more than likely will be cutting back its passenger service. Indeed, the passenger service between Sudbury and
July 24, 1975

Toronto, for example, will be cut down to three days a week from seven days a week.
This kind of measure is regressive and cuts down whatever little public transit service we have at the moment. As a matter of fact, the railway companies submitted a report last December but they have received no acknowledgement from the Department of Transport. In that report the companies outlined the financial straits in which they find themselves with regard to their passenger services. The CNR says to the public-they have said it to people who have telephoned me about it-that when the public complains about lack of service, they should phone their MPs or write to the Department of Transport. But the Department of Transport keeps telling the railways to maintain the status quo. The railway companies cannot even do that.
The government says that this tax is a method of energy conservation. It does not even come close to that. I think it is absolutely phony for anyone in the government to say that this kind of excise tax is a conservation method. We have only to look at the actions of the government in the last few months: recently we noted that the government was prepared to go ahead with the Pickering airport. Why are we pushing people toward using airplanes when we sadly need rail transportation to move people between cities and within cities?
My own city of Sudbury is in the centre of a number of communities with populations of 5,000, 16,000, 10,000 and 3,000. The major railway companies have their rail lines running through the small towns and into the city. Almost everybody in Falconbridge walks; they are not using those rail lines. No funds are being made available for setting up a transit system allowing people from the outlying communities to travel to the city. This government says it is prepared now to spend $180 million on parking facilities for terminal 2 in Toronto. Is that the new emphasis? Will that conserve energy? As a matter of fact, it has been proved that airlines operating within a distance of 500 miles cannot make money on those routes, that the distance is too short in terms of the fuel required for the plane to take off and land.
We have the example of STOL between Ottawa and Montreal. How does that service conserve energy? The CNR introduced the Turbo last January to run between Montreal and Ottawa. What have the STOL people been doing? They have asked CN not to advertise their service between Ottawa and Montreal. What has the government done? It has forced all its bureaucrats, its aparatchiks, to travel from Ottawa to Montreal on STOL aircraft. I do not see how that could be part of the total strategy about which the government was talking last July when they were campaigning about providing an efficient interurban transportation system at reasonable cost. The minister said in his latest report on transportation that they would prefer to give everybody free bus tickets if they would fly; they could ride the buses free. Of course, he would like that.
Who pays for the roads, the expressways and the bus terminals? Certainly the federal government does not have to spend its funds on that kind of transportation. As
Excise Tax Act
a matter of fact, railway companies receive no indirect subsidies for inspection and maintenance of the rails, no indirect subsidies for building and maintaining terminals. This government does not want people riding the rails; they want them on airplanes, which is one of the most inefficient ways of moving people over short distances.
I do not know what the government has in mind when it talks about transportation, other than the iniquitous kind of excise tax proposed in this bill. Governments in Europe and the United States are not putting money into the development of air travel. That is a thing of the past. It is far too costly and certainly does not conserve energy. They are putting money into rail transportation and are moving away from airlines. We are pushing people on to airlines. We know that Air Canada lost $19 million last year on its Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal service. It has been proven that to transport people by air for less than 500 miles is uneconomical, and any government which follows that pattern is following madness.
The government says it is interested in the conservation of energy. This excise tax bill will not achieve conservation. There is no strategy, no opportunity for mediumsized communities to obtain funds with which to build rapid transit systems. The Pickering airport proposal is absolute madness and will only encourage greater density of population in an already rapidly expanding area. To put it in an area of fertile farmland is also madness. If the government is talking about conservation, then their decisions should follow some sort of conservation pattern. It seems to me there is a move afoot to force railway companies to raise their fares just so the airlines can increase theirs. I expect that the airlines will shortly announce an increase.
This excise tax bill is also iniquitous because it creates hardships for working Canadians in Nickel Belt and areas like it. Right across the country we have strikes and contracts presently being negotiated through the collective bargaining process. This government uses the working class people of this country for their own purposes. They run around seeking consensus from employers and employees. Does this ten cents per gallon excise tax reassure the working class that they ought to reconsider their demands? The government has promoted the idea, which has been carried by the press, that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers' request for a 71 per cent increase is exorbitant. But 71 per cent of what, Mr. Speaker? We have to think what such percentages are based on.
In my constituency, the United Steelworkers of America have just signed a new contract. When they started negotiating six or eight months ago there was no thought of a ten-cent excise tax, so they negotiated in good faith for what they felt was an increase in the cost of living and something more for their productivity. They had no sooner signed the contract than the ten cents per gallon excise tax on gasoline was announced.
I cannot understand why the government does not realize the effects of this tax. Several members from my part of the country on that side and many from areas like mine are experiencing great difficulty with this excise tax. In northern Ontario we experience differentials in cost between other parts of Ontario on just about everything. Living so far north, we have to pay a great deal more for
29669 - 1 ll/i

July 24, 1975
Excise Tax Act
food, homes and buildings. This excise tax hits us in a very discriminatory fashion. We not only have to pay for the discrepancy in prices between our part of the province and others, but we have to put up with other actions by this government which can only be described as iniquitous.
We can think of the people in Elliot Lake, for instance, who risk their lives in the mines. I do not think any member of parliament would like that experience; there is nothing enjoyable about it. These people, who do so much for the productivity of the country, are the first to feel the brunt of this kind of tax. If this government were worth its salt, it would remove this iniquitous tax and go home for a holiday. We are quite prepared to stay here, however. The moose season in Nickel Belt opens on October 15.


An hon. Member:: When is the bull season?


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) is worried about going fishing in the Welland Canal, but he might as well forget about it; he is going to be here for a while. The moose season and December 25 will come along, but if this government had any courage at all surely its backbenchers would be putting pressure on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to withdraw this bill. He is holding up the holidays and creating hardship for many constituents.
My party was opposed to the measure when it was announced on the night of the budget, and we stand opposed to it now. As the representative of the people of Nickel Belt, it would not inconvenience me if this House continues to sit. The inconvenience caused by this ten cents excise tax is greater for my constituents than for me to stay here through the summer and give up two months of sunshine. I am prepared to stand in this House and continue with this bill until the government withdraws it.
If the backbenchers on the Liberal side would show some courage, we might get some action. They do not have to feel they are parting company with their minister; they would be acting in the best interests of their constituents, and it is important they remember that. People sometimes believe they can do these things between elections and the people will forget about them. I hope to be around when the next election is called, to remind the people that the Liberal Party instituted this excise tax. I repeat, I am prepared to stay here all summer, all fall and all winter until this government-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is holding up the bill.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, I know the hon. member wants to go away on holidays. He made a down payment on a trailer and wants to go on a trip. But I am prepared to stay here all fall and all winter. I want to keep the government's frontbenchers sitting in this House. The hon. lady opposite can forget her fishing trip. As I said, my constituents will be inconvenienced far more by this tax than I shall by staying here, if I must, through the heat of the summer. I tell you, I am prepared to stay here.


An hon. Member:: Yes, and holiday in the winter.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member can speak on the bill. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) opposes the bill, let her stand up and tell her constituents she opposes this excise tax. My party will stay here and fight this excise tax bill right down to the wire. I hear hon. members commenting. I know that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is prepared to stay here. If she opposes this bill, why does she not rise and say so-put her remarks on the record? As I say, I am prepared to stay here all summer debating this bill or until such time as the government is prepared either to withdraw it or hoist it- put it off until 1999. That is the only fair way to deal with this kind of measure.
In closing, I urge hon. members to consider seriously putting pressure on the Minister of Finance to withdraw this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the other night I said I wanted to say something more on this bill. As the House did not see fit to extend my time, I am pleased to take the opportunity today of adding to what I have said.


Mr. Boulanger:: Don't say what you said the other day.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have news for the hon. member. I hope he will listen as carefully as he listened the other evening; I hope my remarks will influence his views on this legislation. Surely the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) by now is totally convinced that this is the wrong way to raise the revenue which we agree he needs to meet the cost of the oil compensation fund. Surely speeches from all sides of the House have convinced him that he should use some other method to raise the $350 million for this year and the $525 million he will need next year and years thereafter. He should use some other way which is fairer to Canadians in all walks of life.
The other night I made four alternate proposals. I suggested that the minister could levy more income tax from individuals, more from corporations, combine greater individual with greater corporation taxes, or he could impose a surcharge on individual income tax, a surcharge on corporate taxes, or a combination of both taxes. My final alternative was one which nobody else mentioned, a modestly low interest rate on deferred taxes. As of March 31 last, there was owing on the books of this country over $7 billion in deferred taxes. If the minister were to access 7.5 per cent on those deferred taxes, he could collect more than the $525 million he needs. That is a lower rate of interest than you can obtain for a house mortgage, an automobile loan or a consumer loan. In that way he could raise the revenue which the House agrees he needs.
The government is to impose a ten-cent tax per gallon on gasoline and the oil companies will charge another five cents a gallon, or more, when they increase prices. After the gasoline has gone through the hands of the wholesalers, bulk retailers and others it will cost between 18 and 22 cents per gallon more. That price is unfair and will impose a burden on people who can least afford it. Further, those who can afford the tax will be entitled to rebates. I appeal to hon. members opposite, in the name of fairmindedness, not to allow the bill to pass. It is intrinsi-
July 24, 1975

cally unfair because it provides rebates for those most able to pay the tax, but none for those least able to pay.
The minister wants to induce people not to use the car, and to use other modes of transportation. Our society is wedded to the automobile as its primary mode of transportation. Other countries which tried to discourage automobile travel with high gasoline prices did not succeed. Such policies are not effective. True, there may be a modest diversion away from the automobile in favour of the bus or train. But our intercity and urban transit systems are totally inadequate. To compound the felony, although the minister says he wants more people to use other modes of transportation, and thereby tries to justify this excise tax, the budget cut the funds available to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). That shows how absurd the budget is and how absurd this bill is.
If the minister really wants people to use modes of transportation other than the car, and really wants us to conserve energy, he should bring in a budget which provides for massive funding, through the Department of Transport, of intercity and urban transport facilities. There should be massive funding in the next five years, involving the Ministry of Transport and aid to provinces, cities and municipalities. But the budget did no such thing.
The Minister of Transport's policy proposal announcement referred specifically, I think, to the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. If the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance were serious, they would introduce a budget and subsequent legislation providing for hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on light, rapid and comfortable-LRC-rail service linking the Detroit River, Quebec City and other heavily populated areas of the country. But the budget does not provide for this. How can the minister expect the people to respond voluntarily, or feel it is worth while using other modes of transportation, when those other modes charge fares which in most cases are unreasonably high?
Really, what has the minister done to persuade people not to use their automobiles, or to get rid of their second or third car and not use a car for so many pleasure trips or so many trips downtown? I thought there would have been proposals in the budget or in subsequent statements or legislation for not only massive aid for urban or interurban transportation, but a system of fares and rates as well as the integration of various modes of transportation, such as rail, subway and bus. I thought there would be a fare structure that would encourage people to use other modes of transportation.
In last year's election campaign and in statements prior to that, Liberal Party spokesmen pledged that if re-elected they would establish a passenger corporation. That has been quietly shelved and forgotten since July 8, 1974. There was nothing in the budget and we have not heard anything from the Minister of Transport about a national passenger corporation. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Transport and others said they would either take over or require Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and other passenger
Excise Tax Act
carrying operations to provide much better passenger service to the public of this country. That has been forgotten.
There was a pledge for massive aid for intercity and urban transit. We have not seen a nickel. The Minister of Finance says that if we increase the price of gasoline by another 20 cents a gallon, the Canadian people will be encouraged to use other modes of transportation. However, those other modes are not there in sufficient quantity or quality. I do not think this parliament should stand for the kinds of anomalies and absurdities arising out of the budget.
Speakers on both sides have pointed out how the Minister of Finance can raise the required revenue in a much fairer manner that would not hurt those who can least afford it. Surely that is an objective of members of all parties. It would not be the first time in the history of this or other parliaments that a minister of finance has accepted the views of members of all parties and has either changed or substituted legislation. We had an example of this today. Although it was a matter of privilege, as a result of the representations of members on both sides of this House last winter, the minister made a significant change in his tax proposals.
It would be no disgrace to the minister, his advisers or the government if they accepted the views expressed not only by members of parliament, but by the public at large. In fact, it would be to their credit; it would show they are big enough to change their minds and bring in a measure to raise the required money in a manner different from that proposed in Bill C-66.
The Canadian Automobile Association recognizes the need for energy conservation. It recognizes that more will have to be done about the quality and quantity of other modes of transportation. This should be readily accessible, with reasonable fares, for a much larger number of people in this country. In fact, this was pointed out in a submission which was mailed to all members. Coming from a source like that, it should be sufficient to convince the Minister of Finance and the government that the method proposed in Bill C-66 is not the one to follow to raise the revenue required for the oil compensation fund. I have been very saddened since yesterday to note that friends to my right have caved in again.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That statement is entirely incorrect. This party put up some 30 speakers who in short, sharp, concise speeches challenged the right of the government in connection with this tax, while the NDP was sitting on its collective seat. We are now waiting for committee of the whole stage where we can challenge individual clauses, as is our parliamentary right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was good enough to help me use up some more time. I will consider that as another contribution to try to persuade the government not to proceed with this legislation. He told us that some 30 Conservative members participated. What happened to the other 67? Why have there not been 97 speeches from the official opposition on this bill? Where are the others? Are they more interested in fishing trips and laying around the backyard than in the public of this country? We have

July 24, 1975
Excise Tax Act
managed to marshall 15 or 16 speeches out of 16 NDP members, and I can assure the House and the hon. member for Peace River that we will be able to marshall more. However, over 60 Tories have not yet said a word.


Gerald William Baldwin: Our members do not have to be marshalled; they do it voluntarily.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is bad enough when some Liberal members get up and object and then vote for a bill.


An hon. Member:: Be quiet; I want to read my newspaper.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The official opposition objected, and now they have chickened out. They sit around the lobby wondering when we will get home for a holiday, when we will get out of here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What a hypocrite. You cannot say that with a straight face.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I must ask that he direct his remarks to the bill. The hon. member should follow the rule of relevancy and speak to the subject matter of the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It may have only been a delusion, but I thought that my reference to the performance of the official opposition in the past 30 hours, and what it is likely to be in the next 30, might have encouraged them to take another look at their position and, if necessary, stay here for the rest of the summer in an effort to persuade this government to change its mind on the method of raising the $525 million. I may have been out of order in expressing those remarks, but I thought they were germane to the matter of an iniquitous gasoline tax. I will leave it at that and try not to get into any more arguments with friends to my right. They can explain to their constituents why they allowed this legislation to pass so readily.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We have fought it every bit as hard as you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will apologize to hon. members to my right if in committee of the whole they all get up and speak on every clause of this bill. If another 60 speak on third reading, I assure them we will make all the speeches we can.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You run your show and we will run ours.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says they will run their show and we can run ours. I wish they would run a show. I wish they would put on a show, a serious effort.
Mrs- Holt: You would be a lousy actor.


John Edward Broadbent: Back to the curtains, Simma.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This excise tax on gasoline applies to personal use only. What the minister forgets is that much of this personal use is from necessity. People have no other choice than to use their cars, whether it is an old age pensioner going to buy groceries, or a worker who has no alternative-


Mrs. Holt:: Same old NDP line.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -but to use his car to drive to work. The minister counts this as personal use. This is unfair, because people in other segments of our society are entitled to rebates with respect to the use of their cars to drive to work. I do not know of any doctor or lawyer who takes a bus. They drive their cars and they are entitled to rebates. But the worker is not so entitled. Is this reasonable? Is it just?
This ten cents a gallon increase-it will eventually amount to 20 cents-will take away all the tax credit which taxpayers have been allowed over the past year or year and a half. It might take more. It will negate any future rebates to which they are entitled-$150 or $175, whatever it might be for 1976. Is this a proper manner in which to raise half a billion dollars, especially when there are nine or ten other ways in which it might be more fittingly done, ways which would be more readily accepted not only by this House but by the public generally? Surely the government will agree to scrap this legislation-


An hon. Member:: Never!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -and devise a new way of raising the money. If they liked, they could call us back in a couple of weeks and we could pass the legislation in a few days. Or it could be the first item of business when the House returns. We could deal with it and pass it quickly. I, for one, would give a personal commitment not to delay it- not even to speak on it except perhaps to say a word or two of congratulation.


An hon. Member:: You told us that when the pay raise came forward, too.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why use this method when there are so many others available? What idiot convinced the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) that this was the best way to raise the money? Whoever accepted it must realize by now that he accepted bad advice and that the government is using a bad method. Surely ministers opposite can come back to the House with alternative legislation to accomplish the same end, a bill which would have the support of the House and of the people across the country.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, while waiting to speak in this debate, a debate we should not be dealing with at the present time, I could not help but listen for a few moments to the severe case of verbal diarrhoea with which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) appears to have become involved. It would also appear that after you have run a substance through a manure spreader so many times, it does not have that much relevancy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Just leave your policy out of it.
July 24, 1975


Thomas Gordon Towers: Nevertheless, I should inform the hon. member that any speech from the Tory Party is always worth three or four from the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: So when he takes that into consideration we are very far ahead of them in this debate. I have been quite interested in listening to the debate. For instance, the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) took an active part in it the other night. In referring to the hon. member for Skeena who came to the aid of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) as the sky was falling in on him and his empire was collapsing, we on this side were immediately aware of a romantic atmosphere created by that speech. It was noticeable that this romanticism gave an automatic lift to the Minister of Finance on to what is often referred to as cloud nine. While witnessing this I was reminded of a poem by Walter Scott:
O young Lochinvar is come out of the west Through all the wide border his steed was the best So faithful in love, so dauntless in war
To put it in other words:
From the west the member for Skeena did barge Saying ten cents a gallon is an acceptable charge She supported the minister, regardless of cost The voters in Skeena now really are lost Her romantic performance was all on her own Will 1978 see her topple from that throne?
There ne'er was a knight like the young Lochinvar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is worthy of Mark Rose.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the poem about Julius Caesar when Anthony was speaking and he said: "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him". I would suggest that I have come here to do neither one, certainly not to praise him for bringing in this legislation, and I would hope not to bury him because I have a tremendous fear that he is probably the best Minister of Finance the government has to offer. If we lost him it is hard to say exactly whom we would get. The others would be worse.
When I listened to his speech on the budget I was reminded of a comic I had read. It is Blondie and Dag-wood. Dagwood said, "Blondie, we've got to start making sacrifices to save money." Blondie said, "You're right. From now on I'll give up my helicopter flying lessons". Dagwood says, "You never took helicopter flying lessons." But Blondie says, "See, I am saving us money already". This is what the Minister of Finance is doing when he is cutting back a billion dollars from his budget. This is a billion dollars he did not really know where he was cutting it back from, but he was cutting it back. One of the ironical parts of it all is the fact that if the time does come when that minister is no longer the Minister of Finance, he will no doubt be able to write a comic strip, and if members opposite find themselves without a minister of finance they can always get a comic writer to write them a budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So what's new?
Excise Tax Act


Thomas Gordon Towers: This legislation is far too serious to joke about. It is really a serious matter when you consider what it is going to cost the Canadian consumer to finance this tax. We on this side intend to propose an amendment at the proper time and place, and I hope the Minister of Finance, along with his parliamentary secretary, will give it due consideration.
There were 326,804,000 gallons of dyed gasoline sold in Canada in 1973. To be processed through the system, the consumers will have to pay the tax and then file for reimbursement if eligible. This means that a tremendous cost burden will be placed on the economy of this country. I asked a question in the House of Commons of the Minister of Finance having to do with whether the financial system could bear this extra load. As reported at page 7164 of Hansard for July 2, I asked the minister:
Has provision been made in the money supply for the extra cash flow requirements of dealers and consumers for the ten cents a gallon gasoline tax or will there be a resulting shortfall in the cash requirements of other sectors of our economy?
The Minister of Finance replied:
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to be precise and brief in the question period on that particular question.
Then I asked this supplementary question:
Can the minister tell this House what the inflationary factor would amount to as a result of the ten cents per gallon tax on gasoline, not only of the tax itself, but also its administration and the extra costing of cash flow requirements to the distributing and consuming public?
It seems to me a senseless exercise for the manufacturers to collect this tax from the bulk dealers and for the bulk dealers in turn to collect it from the consumers. Some $32,680,000 will be required per year to finance this tax in one way or another. If this cash flow turns over more quickly, say three months or so, I suggest it could be cut down, but it will certainly put a heavy strain on the economy of this country. This turnover of cash does not mean that the government will have extra money, in fact, it is going to cost the government money to handle collection of the tax and to rebate the same.
I hope that when the time comes to make an amendment, the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary will give this matter serious consideration. The four western provinces and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have dyed gas, and if this question receives due consideration it will alleviate much of the problem of rebates in the rural parts of the country.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I found the point made by the Conservative member who has just resumed his seat a very good one, but I am amazed that he only spent about five minutes on it. If he is so concerned about the unfairness of this tax, he should have carried on for his allotted 40 minutes. But as my hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) said earlier, the Conservatives are really not serious about fighting this most unfair and discriminatory ten cents a gallon gasoline tax on behalf of the consumers of this country.
Members of parliament have received many letters and complaints from their constituents about this ten cents tax on gasoline, provision for which is made in the current

July 24, 1975
Adjournment Motion
budget bill now before the House. The reasons the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and his cohorts in the Liberal Party put forward to explain and to justify this tax are just incredible.
Yesterday I was interested to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) during the question period whether, since it was costing some $200,000 a day to keep the House in operation, it would be advisable to show the Canadian people what was happening to their tax dollars, the implication quite clearly being that the hon. member would prefer some kind of closure or, to take her logic to its ultimate conclusion, some kind of dictatorship which would mean that no resistance of any sort would be offered by the opposition in this House.
We are elected by our constituents to stand in this chamber and voice their opinions and criticisms of the government, and that is what we intend to do. Certainly those of us in the New Democratic Party will continue to do this even if we have to sit here through the long, hot summer until we pound some sense into this government. I hear a plaintive voice from the backbenches of the Liberal Party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Sounds more like a whine to me.


Reginald Cyril Symes: It is the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I wish she would rise in her place after I have spoken and give us a rational defence, if that is possible, of this unjust and unfair tax. I should like to hear some sound arguments from that side of the House, but I have not heard any today. The argument that the Minister of Finance uses, when you get right down to it, is ludicrous. He says there are two reasons for this bill. One is that the government is running short of money with which to make the oil compensation payments to the multinational oil companies who got us into this mess in the first place. Secondly, he said this tax will discourage the use of gasoline and hence bring about conservation.
May I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack); Criminal Code-Proposed increase in penalties for extortion-Government position; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert); Public Works-Request for change in regulations to permit people in northern areas to rent premises owned by department; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen); Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Alleged reduction in expenditures for force-Minister's position.

It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent I move;
That Bills C-213, C-222, C-232, C-279, C-287, C-290, C-292, C-304, C-307, C-336, C-362, C-389 and C-405 be withdrawn, their orders be discharged from the order paper and that the subject matter of these bills be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will agree to this proposal. I was hoping that the hon. member who moved it might tell us whether he has any inside information as to what will happen when we get to committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion. Is it agreed that such an order be made and that the subject matter of such bills be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
ALLIANCE SECURITY & INVESTIGATION, LTD.
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: that Bill S-26, respecting Alliance Security & Investigation, Ltd., as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Blais moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
July 24, 1975
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a procedural matter involved. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Henri is asking that the House unanimously consent to revert to motions to allow him to move concurrence of the fifth report of the committee. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gérard Loiselle: that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, presented to the House earlier today, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West) moved: that Bill S-28, respecting the Royal Canadian Legion, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I propose that the bill be read a second time, be referred to a committee of the whole and that we agree to expedite its passage. It is a very simple bill. The committee cannot meet and report back until some time late in the fall, and I thought it would expedite the passage of the bill and meet the wishes of the House if I moved the following:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "referred" and substituting therefor the following words:
"to a committee of the whole House."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of introducing Bill S-28 respecting the Royal Canadian Legion. It was introduced in the other place by Senator Carter and has been studied by the standing committee of the Senate on health, welfare and science. Hon. members who are inter-
Royal Canadian Legion
ested in the proceedings may wish to look at the minutes of that committee of July 17, a copy of which I have in my hand.
This year is the fiftieth anniversary of the Legion in Canada. Following World War I it came into existence to serve the needs of those veterans who felt that such a fraternal and benevolent organization was absolutely essential. It received a very substantial infusion of new members following World War II. However, at this stage the Legion is operating with an antiquated charter which is something like 50 years old. This bill updates a number of its provisions.
Today the Legion continues to expand its membership, but its members know that its base of those who actually served in the armed forces of Canada throughout the country is a diminishing base in numbers. The Legion has amended its provisions. It admits to membership the sons and daughters of those who served. It has to think of the future; it has to look at the changes which can reasonably be anticipated in the period ahead.
The purpose of this bill is to make changes which will have the effect of clarifying and updating the provisions governing the revocation of branch charters, the dissolution of Legion branches and the disposition of the property of branches. It is intended to bring about modern procedures of property management and review to make sure that both the old members and the new members are served, and that there are no circumstances in which contracts could be entered into which were not the most wise in the circumstances, or dispositions of property which may not be in the interests of the Legion.
I am confident that hon. members who have any questions on this matter will find that the examination of witnesses before the committee of the other place was exhaustive and that any questions in the minds of hon. members would be answered. I hope that by unanimous consent it will be possible to proceed today in committee of the whole, as was indicated by the motion moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and to third reading in anticipation that perhaps this House might be adjourning in the not too distant future.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as a member who has been interested in the affairs of the Legion for a considerable period of time, I am pleased and gratified that the House has taken what I consider to be a very unusual step. First, the bill was late and received consideration by the other place almost by leave. Then it received special consideration by this House, which is not now as dominated by veterans as previously was the case.
I should like to compliment the Legion on the effort it has made to deal with some of the problems that have developed in respect of ownership and management of property. As the members of the Legion have changed, the whole idea of the Legion has changed. Members will agree that veterans who served in World War I are now beyond
7914

July 24, 1975
Excise Tax Act
the age where in the main they take an active part in the operations of the Legion. Veterans who served in World War II are now in their fifties.
An effort has been made to build up this very bona fide organization not only so that it might serve the veterans themselves but also to serve the communities throughout Canada in which Legion branches are situated. It has been recognized that there could develop a very serious situation unless the Legion could be operated as a service organization in which not only veterans participate but also the sons and daughters of veterans and interested citizens in the community.
I am sure the fact that a new structure has been arrived at has caused a great deal of soul-searching. However, it is my pleasure that the members of this House have made extraordinary concessions in order to allow this bill to pass and to allow the Legion in a new form to continue its function in various communities. I think the Legion deserves the support of all the Canadian people. The program outlined at the last Dominion convention is an extensive one which involves many changes. This bill relates only to some of the changes. Members of parliament are to be congratulated for their understanding of the problems that have developed and for the support they are now giving for the new direction the Royal Canadian Legion is following in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.20 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, shortly before five o'clock I began to speak on Bill C-66, the iniquitous bill proposed by the Liberal government to impose a ten cents a gallon gasoline tax on consumers. We in the NDP oppose this legislation on the grounds that we find it unjust and discriminatory.
I should like to examine the arguments of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) whereby he attempts to justify

this piece of legislation, and to show that many of the arguments that he puts forward rest on a false premise and, for these reasons the bill should be rejected.
The government has found itself in the position of having to raise some $500 million over the next year to make up for a deficit in the compensation payments paid to the oil companies in eastern Canada in order to keep the price of oil in Canada below the international world price. At present the price of oil in this country is $6.50 a barrel. On August 15 it will rise to $8.50 a barrel. That is still below the international price, which ranges between $11 and $12 a barrel.
Because of the government's lack of a national energy policy, because the government has allowed multinational oil companies to move into Canada and develop this vital resource, we find that the companies' designed oil exploration and oil supply system will benefit them, not only in the short run but in the long run. These companies moved into western Canada once they found oil in the early 1950's, and then argued that because there was so much oil on hand they had to export it in order to raise enough revenue to continue exploring for more oil in the prairie region.
They could have exported this oil out of Alberta into eastern Canada if they had built a pipeline, but it was far easier and more to the advantage of these oil companies, which were subsidaries of American parent companies, to export the oil to the United States. Because we did not have a pipe line built from western to eastern Canada, when the day came that international oil prices rose we found that eastern Canada, which depended on oil from Venezuela and the Middle East, was going to be forced to pay the high world price.
In the minority parliament, the twenty-ninth parliament, we in this party argued that it was completely unfair that consumers in eastern Canada should be paying a higher price than consumers in western Canada. We said that what the government should do, because the United States was paying the world price for oil, was to impose an export tax on western Canadian oil being shipped to the United States. It was this export tax that gave the government enough surplus revenue to compensate the oil companies in eastern Canada and keep the price of oil across this nation below the world price. That worked quite well.
We were able to keep the price of oil in Canada at $6.50 a barrel for over a year and a half. But at the same time the government, at the urging of the NDP, began to undertake through the National Energy Board an independent analysis of the supply of oil on hand in this country, and the National Energy Board came out with a report last year which showed that we would be running short of oil by the early 1980's. Hence the government had to cut back on its oil exports to the United States, and as a result the money from the export tax declined. Therefore the government has to raise money to continue the compensation payments to eastern Canada. By this method it is hoped to keep the price across the nation as of August 15 at $8 a barrel. So we have a problem.
The government needs about $500 million in the current year to continue the compensation payments. So why then does the government choose the option of a ten cents a gallon gasoline tax? I think it is indicative of the predica-
July 24, 1975

ment in which the Liberal government finds itself because it relies so heavily on the multinational oil companies to find new oil for this nation.
I have just pointed out that we will be running short by 1980. Because we do not have an industry that is controlled in Canada and, more important, a publicly owned industry owned by the people of Canada through their government, the Liberal government must rely on the oil industry, which is 90 per cent foreign controlled, to do the exploration to develop the oil resources in this country. As a result it has been boxed into a corner from which it does not dare tax the oil companies or amend the taxation laws that give so many concessions to these oil companies. Faced with the problem of raising revenue it can only turn to the individual consumer and make him pay for its misguided policies over the past decade.
The oil companies in fact are threatening to go on strike against the Canadian people. They are saying that if the government through its budgets does not give them further concessions-and the minister did eventually bow to their demands to give them 100 per cent oil exploration write-offs and other kinds of tax concessions-they would not continue to look for oil in this country.
If there is ever an example of corporate irresponsibility and an example to justify public ownership in resource industries, this is it, because if we bow to the demands of the oil companies in this country we will be continually at their mercy as seen by the kind of policy that they develop which divides the country in half, makes one half dependent on high price oil imports, and hence puts us in the position of seeing our price for oil in Canada rise to international levels. It is ridiculous when we consider the amount of oil reserves in this country. We should not be in the position of France, and some of the other European countries, of having to pay high international prices.
The Liberals have nowhere to go because they do not dare challenge their corporate friends in the oil industry, and because they are not serious about setting up a viable national petroleum company. Of course one is on the books. It had a modest capitalization of $500 million, but in the last budget the Minister of Finance reduced that to $100 million. That company is turning out to be a joke, a public relations gimmick to make the Canadian people think the government is doing something to buy back the oil industry, or even to find oil.
Faced with the option of telling the oil companies they have made so much profit from the Canadian consumer in the past that they are going to be asked to absorb some of the price increase, the government chooses instead to levy a ten cents per gallon excise tax.
Where is this half billion dollars going, Madam Speaker? It is going to the oil companies that got us into this predicament to begin with, and which have made incredible profits in the past few years because of the escalation in price.
I should like to cite two companies as examples. In 1973, Imperial Oil made a profit after taxes of $227 million; in 1974, it was $290 million. In 1973 Gulf Oil profit after taxes and expenditures was $100 million; in 1974 it was $161 million. These poor oil companies will receive this ten
Excise Tax Act
cents a gallon tax that the government is imposing. Is that justified in light of some of the practices of the oil companies based in Canada?
A court case in Nova Scotia revealed some very interesting things. The government of Nova Scotia took Imperial Oil to court over the price it was charging the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Testimony showed that Imperial Oil, and most likely many of the other oil companies operating in eastern Canada, found loopholes in the government's conservation program and were able to get money through compensation payments that they should not have had in the first place.
These oil companies have ripped off the consumers in the past and, as evidenced by the Nova Scotia court case, have had questionable import arrangements. The minister himself said in the House that it was a technicality-they found a loophole and were able to get millions of dollars through compensation payments that they should not have had.
There was an interesting analysis of the situation in the May 30 issue of the Montreal Gazette. That newspaper summarized the case and showed that Imperial Oil got around a law designed by this inept government, by using a token Bermuda company to skim off $35 million in profits of crude oil for five years, and then transferred the profits to Canada tax free.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I am afraid he is straying from the subject, which is a bill to amend the Excise Tax Act.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, I am just trying to follow the example set by the Minister of Finance in his address on the budget. The point I am trying to develop is that Canadian consumers are paying a ten cents a gallon excise tax to these major oil companies who, through questionable economic practices, have already bilked the Canadian government and the Canadian taxpayer of millions of dollars in revenue. As a result I say this kind of compensation payment is unwarranted and unjust.
I should like to give further evidence in support of my objection to the government paying these companies the revenue from the excise tax. The court case in Nova Scotia shows that Exxon of the United States, which is the parent company of Imperial Oil of Canada, exercises very tight control over Imperial Oil's supplies, and Imperial's executives in Canada have little to say in regard to what price will be paid for oil. In other words, decisions on the price of oil in eastern Canada are not being made by directors of the Canadian corporation, Imperial Oil; they are being made by the parent company directors of Exxon in the United States. There is a pricing policy beyond the jurisdiction of the government. The government, because it has allowed the oil industry to be foreign owned, is helpless and goes along with policies made in a foreign country. What an example that is of loss of economic sovereignty.
The government is going to make consumers pay ten cents per gallon more for gasoline, and is going to turn that revenue over to those oil companies who carry out very questionable practices in this country.
29669-18'/z

July 24, 1975
Excise Tax Act
Many Liberal backbenchers have been silent through this debate. They have received complaints from their constituents but have been afraid to stand up on their behalf. They have accepted the argument of the Minister of Finance that somehow this ten cents per gallon tax is just and that the poor oil companies deserve the revenue.
I have heard one or two Liberal members speak, and I think that is a record. They are usually quiet when the minister presents this type of legislation. One of their arguments to try to justify the tax was that if it were not done by direct taxation then it would have to be done through income tax; that it would be unfair to anyone who does not use a car to pay income tax to raise revenue, and that people at the lower end of the economic scale would be paying income tax to compensate eastern Canadian consumers. I reject that argument, Madam Speaker. If there is anything that is discriminatory it is this kind of sales tax that applies across the board, no matter whether you make $5,000, $10,000, or $50,000 per year. It is discriminatory to hit the low income earner with the same tax as the high income earner.
If there is any principle that I thought was accepted by Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian government it is that income tax is the fairest way to raise revenue. It is based on ability to pay, so those in the high income brackets can afford higher taxes and those in the lower brackets pay less.
This kind of proposed tax hits the old age pensioner just the same as someone in a high income bracket. It hits the disabled person, it hits the worker who has to drive to work-not the same as a doctor at the upper income level or a salesman or anyone else who has a car. The Liberals always have to look after their friends in the upper income brackets and so have provided exemptions for them.
I point out that doctors, salesmen, and others who use their cars for business will not pay the ten cents a gallon tax. It will be refunded to them. Workers will pay. Steelworkers of my constituency, and others in rural Canada who must drive 10 or 20 miles to work, must pay the tax; doctors, salesmen, and others will not. That is why I say this tax is so unfair. Both low income and high income people must pay the same rate of tax. If any Liberal backbencher can explain why that system of taxing is fair, I should like to hear him-or her. I submit that this kind of tax discriminates against low income people, and against those in certain job categories. That is why it is unfair.
If people could take public transport, if they were not forced to drive a car, it would be different. In the 1974 election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent on improving the country's public transport. What happened to that promise? It is as hollow as other Liberal promises. Most people cannot choose to take the subway, bus, or fast train from the suburbs or rural communities to their work place. They must drive their automobiles. Why should they not be given the right to the rebate?
But the government will not exempt the mass of consumers, those who drive to work or use their cars for recreation. The government will not exempt them, but will

exempt its friends. That is unfair. The government has put this ten cents a gallon tax on the backs of the working people of the country.
The government could use other methods for raising $500 million. It need not increase personal taxes. It could make the corporations shoulder a fairer share of the tax burden. Actually this would not entail increasing corporate taxes. Theoretically, corporations pay a rate of about 46 per cent, but their many deductions reduce corporate taxes to 20 per cent in some cases. Some oil companies pay as little as 11 per cent. However, the government need not interfere with the corporate tax system. It could raise the money by charging interest on money which has been made available over the years to corporations. What am I talking about, Madam Speaker?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish I knew.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Corporations owe $7 billion in deferred taxes, which is nothing but an interest free loan. If the government charged them 10 per cent, it could raise $700 million a year in extra revenue. But the government has not charged the corporations interest. Madam Speaker, my constituents cannot borrow money from the bank at much less than 10 per cent or 11 per cent. But the government gives the corporations an interest free gift in the form of deferred taxes. It need not increase corporate taxes. Let it charge interest on deferred taxes. Surely even the backward looking Liberals will accept the fairness of this proposition.
If the government lends the corporations $7 billion it ought to charge them at least 10 per cent interest and thereby raise money for the oil compensation plan. That way it would not need to charge the consumers of gasoline a ten cents a gallon tax. Perhaps that approach is too sane, too logical for the Liberals. When they do not want to do something, when they do not want to initiate a new health plan or pay a higher old age pension, they argue, "But we do not have the money and can only raise it by increasing your taxes." They never mean corporate taxes; they always mean taxes paid by individuals. The proposed excise tax is another example of that very policy which is so discriminatory.
Besides the ten cents a gallon tax the consumer must pay other taxes. The province of Ontario charges a tax of 19 cents per gallon. Even before the budget gasoline prices in Ontario averaged 65 cents per gallon, and prices in northern Ontario were substantially higher. Prices will rise, and fully 29 cents of the new price will go to paying federal and provincial gasoline taxes. Putting it another way, 60 per cent of the cost of every gallon of gasoline in Ontario will go to meeting federal and provincial excise and sales taxes. These taxes are discriminatory. Both high and low income people pay the same rate of tax under this system, whereas the graduated income tax does not work this way. Better still, why not charge the corporations interest on their $7 billion of deferred taxes?
This legislation will hit hard those who must drive their car to work, those who are disabled and depend on their cars, and the low income people-this includes the majority of Canadians-who depend on their cars for the family vacation. It will ruin the tourist industry in my part of northern Ontario. People will not drive their cars to our
July 24, 1975

cities and recreational areas. They will not use hotel and motel accommodation in the north.
The other day the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) tried to explain to the House how the rebate system will work. I fail to see how we can avoid the sort of bureaucratic bungling which has characterized the Liberal administration. There are too many loopholes. How will the law be enforced? How will you tell if the salesman or doctor is using his car for work, for pleasure, or for a vacation? These people will claim that they drive a certain number of miles in the course of their work; how can you tell? My constituents complain about cars used for business being used for recreation. They know that the people using their cars this way are abusing the tax system. There is bound to be much cheating under the new rules. People will claim a rebate when they are not entitled to one.
To be fair, we ought to rescind the ten cents a gallon provision and raise the necessary revenue by using some of the other methods I suggested. If corporations paid interest on their deferred taxes, the problem would be solved right away.
Before concluding I cannot help noting that the bill rescinds the excise tax on wine imposed in the November budget. In other words the Minister of Finance favours consumers of wine over consumers of gasoline. I was interested the other day in hearing the Liberal member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) say how he and his colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula had lobbied for this tax on wine to be rescinded. It is hypocritical that those same Liberal members voted for the November 18 budget that put the excise tax on wine. It is typical of the two-faced attitude of Liberals and their contempt for consumers. They make promises to the sky at election time, but if they get back with a majority they are the same old arrogant bunch who want to fight inflation on the backs of the working poor. I wish Canadians could see the faults and weak arguments put up to justify legislation such as this. It just does not make sense.
I am also disappointed in the members of the Conservative party who, only a few days ago, said that they were going to fight this piece of legislation tooth and nail. They said they would stand up for the Canadian consumer and stay here to force the government to back down. Where are all their speakers? Suddenly there is silence from the Conservative party. They could have had 60 more speakers on this unfair piece of legislation. However, now they want to get home for their vacations at their cottages and swimming holes. I am disappointed that they are not going to stand up and fight this arrogant majority.
We cannot get Liberals to defend this horrendous legislation. Now the Conservatives have also given up. That indicates that if the Conservative party were sitting on the opposite side instead of the government there would not be much change. They would bring in the same kind of discriminatory legislation.
We are prepared to argue against this unfair piece of legislation. If we have to sit here for the next few days, or for another week or two, we are prepared to do it. We believe that when our constituents sent us to Ottawa they
Excise Tax Act
did so in order for us to defend their rights as consumers. That is what we intend to do by opposing this piece of legislation.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, I was interested today to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) explain to members of parliament, and through the story in the Gazette explain to people across this country that the only way that members of parliament have any input into changes is to do it loudly, in great, numbers, and on successive occasions.
In the discussion the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated that he felt boats, snowmobiles and outboard motors should be taxed. After listening to 57 members of parliament and many other representations, the minister received a push from the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who has a great interest in small boats because he represents a tourist area where there is also a manufacturer of boats. He used some extraordinary methods which many of us in the opposition have not taken advantage of, putting pressure on the government in the House of Commons and putting pressure on senior civil servants in private. In that way you are able to have some changes brought about. This was indicated as the only way to change the mind of the Minister of Finance.
As a member from northern Ontario, and like the two previous speakers from northern Ontario, I support a change being made to Bill C-66 with regard to the ten cent excise tax on gasoline. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was quite right in putting undue, and maybe excessive and even unethical pressure on certain segments of the government to have a tax that was highly detrimental to industry in this area removed. There are not very many industries in our northern constituencies. You have to husband each industry very carefully. If you lose one through an unfair disadvantage such as a tax, you may not get another.


Gerald William Baldwin: How do you husband an industry?


William Arnold Peters: This also applies to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He does not have much industry in his constituency. There is not much industry in northern Canada.
The other two members from northern Ontario who spoke joined the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in stressing the fact that we must impress on the minister that there must be special concessions for our people or they will be put out of business.
When the minister dropped the tax on wine he was again reacting to pressure that had been applied by some members on the government side. Some members on this side of the House were interested in this as well. One member is shaking his head. It is not quite as simple as saying that only some members were interested in this. Wine sales in Ontario and Quebec dropped off drastically. Because of this the government found that it cannot tax to the extent of having no return. Hopefully we can arrive at that stage with regard to gasoline.
The wine industry in Ontario is very important. The federal government has been very interested in helping its development. We have developed a hybrid grape stock

July 24, 1975
Excise Tax Act
which produces a very palatable wine. We no longer have to drink Cawtaba after which you will tackle anything or want to climb a pole. I think all hon. members are sympathetic to the reduction in that tax, again allowing good wine to be the basis for a satisfactory repast. It has been said much better by poets, but I want to say it is a requirement for a good meal.
For many people in my area it is a requirement that they have gasoline for their automobiles. The amount of driving could be reduced with something that has been kicked around in this debate, namely, public transportation. Maybe the price of gasoline should be two dollars a gallon. Maybe we should not be using gasoline at all. Maybe we should be using our diminishing reserves of petroleum for purposes other than motoring. But this fits into a different category from the ten cents increase which the minister tells us will be used as an equalization payment. That argument sounds good; he says the payment will help provide equalization as between east and west. But there is no equalization within the various areas.
Take the area in which I live. Gasoline is ten cents cheaper 100 miles south of me and ten cents cheaper 100 miles to the north.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Beer is the same price, though.


William Arnold Peters: I hear one hon. member asking why.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: No. I said beer was the same price.


William Arnold Peters: The reason is that there has not been a price war in the middle. There has been a price war at both ends but none in the middle, so the oil companies are able to take full advantage of their position by maintaining a fairly high price.
I note that funds have been provided to Petro-Can, a corporation which conceivably could play an important role in the equalization of gasoline prices. This agency could buy an interest in the seven major oil companies or, better, it could buy one of them and set the price by competition in the distribution of gasoline. If the minister wanted to take this course he would have to provide a suitable amount of money to enable Petro-Can to go into business. But he did not. I understand the agency has been financed with a sum of $100 million and I do not think it would be possible to buy many retail distribution centres for that. A much larger amount would be required.
Some hon. members, particularly those who support the government, are not really interested in all this. These are days of majority government. When we have a majority Liberal government, the cabinet is always right. On the other hand, when there is a minority government, the cabinet has to look seriously at all these things and consider all the implications.
In a minority situation the Liberal Party caucus has a great deal of influence, but when the government has an over-all majority one does not find many backbenchers disagreeing. I was surprised when the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) got up the other day and made a speech. That speech made it almost a certainty that he will never become a parliamentary secretary-almost a cer-

tainty that he will never get any promotion. He has to weigh a consideration of that kind against whether or not he will be elected in his own riding on the strength of the representations he makes. I give him full marks for standing up and discussing a subject in which he is interested, one in which he has played a considerable role. I think he had an obligation to do so. Then there is the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. We shall probably find out more about that situation.


An hon. Member:: Tomorrow.


William Arnold Peters: I don't think we shall find out much tomorrow; I believe it will be some time before we get any more information.
I make the assertion that backbenchers in the government party are not really exercising the determination they say they are, that they are not really making any representations on behalf of their constituents on this important subject-the imposition of an excise tax on gasoline. They are doing it exactly as they always do under a majority government. Frankly I believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is an exception because he comes from Northern Ontario and has a specific interest. But the rest are sitting on their hands and going along with whatever the cabinet decides. It is a little like General Bullmoose and General Motors-whatever is good for General Motors is good for the country.
It seems to me the minister has a point in his favour if he can extend these concessions he says he intends to make to self-employed people, doctors, farmers, owners of commercial enterprises, fishermen and others, though we are talking here about a sizeable number of people in a diversity of occupations. If we, federally, can make this kind of exemption, why cannot we at least extend it to working people who use their automobiles to drive to their places of employment?


Mr. Bechard:: Are you implying that farmers and fishermen don't work?


William Arnold Peters: I am not saying that farmers or fishermen don't work. But I am saying that there has always been a hassle when it came to commercial fishermen and farmers getting provincial rebates on the gasoline they used. I do not think farmers, for example, have ever got a rebate from the federal government before. If the minister intends to set up a bureaucracy to deal with this sort of thing then at least he should be willing to extend its activities so as to cover the case of ordinary working people. Frankly, I do not know how this could be done easily. I do not know how he will deal with all these applications from private individuals-farmers, fishermen, self-employed. It has always been very difficult in the case of the province of Ontario, and the provinces are considerably closer to the people than is the federal government.
All of us in Ontario remember purple gas-the gas was coloured because it carried an exemption, and it was not supposed to be used in the wrong vehicle. But we are setting up a huge bureaucracy to cover this ten cents tax rebate, and while I think this is the wrong way of doing things I suppose we might as well go as far as to exempt those who need gasoline to go to work. It would not be
July 24, 1975

hard to get verification, but this would not be possible with a large number of other categories.
What verification would a doctor be able to provide that he used a car for a certain number of miles and was entitled to exemption on a certain amount of gasoline? The same can be said of a salesman, lawyer, or any grocery store. Most of the small restaurants in Ottawa run a Cadillac or other large car with a little sign in the window advertising take-out orders. Although take-out orders are not supplied by using the Cadillac, the Cadillac is written off for income tax purposes.
It is bad enough that the government is cheated right there, but how is the minister going to verify that such a businessman does use an automobile legitimately and that he can claim a rebate? When it comes to the farmer, or fisherman, or worker who drives 75 or 100 miles to work, it will be fairly easy to verify the amount of gasoline used. Driving from one community to another in the course of one's job presents no difficulties of verification for the employer, since he would know the licence number and so on, and the mileage could be calculated. You could even go one step further and calculate so many miles to the gallon regardless of the kind of car driven. In that event there would be no cheating.


An hon. Member:: You want to establish a bureaucracy.


William Arnold Peters: Someone says I am establishing a bureaucracy. Let me tell the House I was very impressed last week by the bureaucracy that the government has established, because National Revenue sent me a bill for $1,100 for income tax owing. I sent them off a cheque for $1,100 and what did they do with it? They applied it against 1975 and sent me another bill indicating I still owed them the money. If we are having trouble of that sort I do not know what trouble we are going to have with John Smith's rebate when trying to decide how much he is entitled to under this legislation.
I am sure the minister would agree that it is not hard to say that a man driving 50 or 100 miles to work every day will get 20 miles to the gallon. Workers do not like to be cheated, and they do not like to cheat themselves, and if a worker's car only gets 15 miles to the gallon then he will quickly change it for one that gets 20.
Many members have intervened in this debate on behalf of the working class of the nation and have spoken about the exemptions or asked the minister to remove the tax, which would certainly by far be the least costly. I think the minister will agree with me that his half a billion dollars will not even exist once it has gone through the bureaucracy. I am reminded very much of the Ontario government which at one time imposed a 3 per cent sales tax, and then after it had been in operation for a short time found it cost three cents to collect the tax, and so raised it to five cents. Although they still had the three cents expense they did get two cents out of it. Then they wanted to get three cents and so they raised the tax to 7 per cent. Now they have removed it until after the next provincial election.
The minister talked of equalization between east and west. He agrees that the former Prime Minister, the right
Excise Tax Act
hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), was right in establishing the Ottawa valley line.


Prosper Boulanger: You mean the Borden line.


William Arnold Peters: Well, whatever you call it. I am talking about the line that comes through Ottawa to Montreal. Everything east of that belongs to the east, and everything west of it belongs to Alberta.
Either the minister did not give much consideration to the real problem of equalization or he decided to follow Eaton's and Simpson's and their approach to east and west. If he were to deal with equalization properly, the man who goes to work at Glace Bay should pay the same for his gasoline as the man who works at Leduc, or for that matter in Toronto. The price of gasoline in Toronto should be the same as that in northern Ontario. I can assure the minister he would get much more flak if people in Toronto were paying 86 cents a gallon for gasoline. I suggest there is no equalization. The minister knows full well the ten cents tax will not equalize the price.
The minister put an export tax on a fairly large volume of oil that was being shipped south of the border, and that did provide some equalization. But this tax revenue has now shrunk to the point where we are paying almost $1 million a day compensation payments to keep the price at the refinery the same in eastern Canada as in western Canada. The federal government even so will only get about 90 cents out of the new price, whereas the oil companies will get considerably more.
The minister does not seem to be able to communicate very well with the provinces. Two elections in the last few months have been fought on his back, those in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Now the Ontario election is going to be fought on his back as well. As a federalist I am not happy about this. I do not think it is good for confederation, and it is certainly not good vis-a-vis the extent to which the federal government has to depend on the provinces for co-operation. The minister has applied the ten cents at the wholesale level, but by the time it gets to the pump it will be more like 12, 13 or 14 cents.
If the normal markup takes place in northern Ontario, the increase will be considerable. With this ten cents tax in Ontario we are now paying 19 cents provincially and 20 cents federally. This means that we are actually paying 39 cents without buying any gasoline. The last time I was involved in negotiations with major oil companies on the price of gasoline, the price was 39 cents. It has gone up considerably since then, but we are imposing a 60 per cent increase on the price, and it seems to me that this is not the way to accomplish a number of things which the minister should be trying to accomplish. One of those things is equality. The minister should be able to provide that equality in pricing all across the nation so that people will pay the same amount for the product no matter where they live.
In their speeches one or two of the minister's colleagues indicated that they live in more remote areas and that gasoline is a necessity in those areas. I am sure the minister agrees that, whether we use the budget method of

July 24, 1975
Excise Tax Act
accomplishing it or not, we should be trying to accomplish a reduction in the size of engines on our highways.
No matter how much we may desire it, it is not possible to substitute public transportation for private transportation in many areas of Canada. In an area running from Montreal to Sault Ste. Marie live 50 per cent of the total Canadian population. There are many unsettled areas in that area as well, but there are great inequalities being worked on those who drive automobiles, and it seems to me that if in that large area one of our desires is to reduce the consumption of gasoline, we should be doing it by the reduction of engine sizes and certainly not providing a rebate on the large American automobiles imported into this country, as did the Ontario government. That is not the way to conserve energy. It would have been much better if this had not been done for American automobiles but for automobiles from other countries under a certain engine size. We would have conserved gasoline by this means, and also given some direction to the automobile industry in North America that it had better get into the swim and start producing smaller cars.
I am participating in this debate because the minister has indicated that the tax was taken off boats because of the influence of 57 hon. members and the extraordinary methods used by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. The minister indicated that this is why that tax was removed. I am sure the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River just bent his ear because he comes from an area where there are new mining communities like Ignace, where there are only trailer camps, where the town has not been able to grow to the extent of the mining community, and where people have to drive great distances. And knowing the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River I am sure that he has used those extraordinary methods in this instance to obtain a rebate on behalf of the workers in that area. I am sure the people from Ignace have told him that the cost of driving from a built up community to a mining community is excessive.
He is like the rest of us who do not receive too many requests from commercial enterprises. He may not have received too many requests from private enterprises, but he has probably received many requests for equality-not for any special concessions-for the working class who have to drive for business purposes. That is the only way of getting to work when public transportation is not available.
I am sure the minister has heard 57 requests. I hope that is the magic number, and I hope that he will give them some consideration if he cannot remove the ten cents tax. I imagine he cannot. I imagine the Cabinet has decided to stand firm, but if he cannot remove the ten cents increase, I hope he will at least make a concession for working people who are able to prove that they use their automobiles for travelling to their employment and returning home. I think this would assist many people in the areas beyond the golden horseshoe and the metropolitan areas of southern Canada.
I hope the minister will giver some consideration to this forgotten group. It is always forgotten. I have been here 18 years, and requests were made before I came here-the request has been made perpetually-that some advantage be given to the working class in exemptions for tools and

other concessions through the income tax structure and it was only very recently that this was done. I suggest that the minister will eventually provide this kind of gasoline tax exemption for the working class. They do not want this exemption for driving to church on Sunday. They do not want it for any frivolous reason.
In all those remote areas of northern Ontario, and particularly in my area, the automobile is not a luxury but a need. It is not something which is used like a boat with an outboard motor, or a ski-doo. It is not something used for recreational purposes or for pleasure. It is used in the course of work, and it is part of the worker's expense.
I hope when we go into committee the minister will take the very extraordinary step of providing, in addition to the exemptions which are now in effect, this exemption for the working class who are willing to provide vouchers endorsed by employers that in fact automobiles were used for transportation purposes in the course of work. Surely the minister will give consideration to granting that small concession for the working people of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker-


Simma Holt: Rosemary, where art thou?


John Edward Broadbent: -there is no other instrument of government policy which so adequately reveals the soul of a political party as does a budget, and there is really nothing like a Liberal budget in a majority government to reveal the health of the soul of the Liberal party. The budget brought in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) shows, as nothing else could, in whose interests this government runs Canada, and against whose interests it runs the country.
There are three major parts of the budget, and I will come to the specific one we are dealing with tonight in just a moment. There is one profound change in the unemployment insurance regulations. One might say that some changes are needed in the unemployment insurance regulations, in the benefit provisions and the financing provisions. On that one might find certain points of agreement.


Simma Holt: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I invite the hon. member, who talks so much sitting down, to take part in this debate later on.
There was a time when there was an hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway-


Simma Holt: The opposition has only one woman over there.


John Edward Broadbent: -who provided not only sound but light, and I look forward to the day when that occurs again.
I was about to say that the unemployment insurance changes are entirely in the direction of placing an increased burden on the average and low income people, as is the case in respect of the excise tax we are debating
July 24, 1975

tonight. The changes in the financing of the medical care and hospitalization programs, which among the budgetary items are perhaps the most crucial in their long run implications for Canada, also will profoundly affect the average and low income people out of proportion as compared to the upper income people. They will affect the poorer provinces of Canada out of all proportion to the richer provinces, just as is the case with regard to the excise tax. All of this has been brought about by this great Liberal party which has governed Canada for so long.
This budget indicates, as nothing else could, that we are now back to the days of 1968-72 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who came in with a great majority at that time, was seen as a great progressive. Back in 1967 when I was teaching at York University in Toronto many people in Toronto were saying that the country needed a progressive man like Trudeau leading the Liberal Party. In terms of his progressivity, a Liberal told me, off in a quiet corner, that the President of the Privy Council offered his private assurance that, in the crunch, he would offer his support to the present Prime Minister for the leadership. Once I learned that, I knew that the present Prime Minister would be at home in the Liberal Party, and at home as Prime Minister in the Liberal Party, following that other great revolutionary, the late William Lyon Mackenzie King. The Prime Minister, on the occasion of the latter's centenary in December, described the former head of the Liberal Party as "our greatest revolutionary." That is the present Prime Minister's description of a former head of the Liberal Party, the man who governed Canada for so long.
I can understand now why the present Prime Minister would have regarded Mackenzie King as a great revolutionary. After all, a Prime Minister who could support this Minister of Finance with regard to this budget could regard Genghis Khan as a great revolutionary. So it does not surprise me.
I should like to point out before I get specifically to the tax measure that Mackenzie King-and there were some Liberals in this debate who referred to him as a great progressive man-was also a man who, just after the First World War when he had an opportunity-and the Prime Minister is aware of this-went to Great Britain where he met some socialists, and ran into George Bernard Shaw. This was revealed in implicit detail in the Mackenzie King diaries. Many people in England and elsewhere regarded George Bernard Shaw not only as a great playwright but also as a great socialist.
Young Willie King wrote in his diary that he really did not like George Bernard Shaw and all those other socialists because they drank beer. King said that the line must be drawn somewhere in respect of political ideals, and one really ought not to associate with people who drank beer.
Later on of course the same Willie King, the man this Prime Minister describes as the greatest revolutionary of our age, was all set to marry a nurse from Chicago until his mother found out, rapidly got some writing paper, and sent a letter off to Willie King in the United States where he was visiting the Carnegies, indeed a poor American family.


An hon. Member:: Get back to the subject.
Excise Tax Act


John Edward Broadbent: I think it is worthwhile to get a little of this on the record. Willie King's mother wrote to him saying that he had better not marry that nurse because, after all, a nurse was not quite good enough for him. I say it is not surprising that the Prime Minister could regard that man as a revolutionary. Their ideas do not differ at all in terms of their social attitude. They are very similar individuals, just as the government which governs this country now is similar to the government of Mackenzie King's day. It was a little different during the days of the minority government when the four or five progressives in the backbenches could say they got something done.
I just wanted to provide a little historical background for the Liberals who do not know much about their own party. Now let me come to the question before the House. Why is it this tax measure is before us? We have this tax measure because the government needs additional revenue to pay for the oil we import. The government has to make up the difference between what we receive in the form of export taxes for the oil we export and what we have to pay for the oil we import off our east coast.
There is no doubt that some additional revenue is necessary. No one questions that. We in our party question whether the amount should be $350 million this year, and some $500 million which is estimated for the following year. We have many suspicions arising from the court cases in Nova Scotia and in the United States that the oil companies in Canada, that is, the branches of the multinational corporations, indulge in immoral and illegal price fixing. We have our very great suspicions about that, but the government of course is not interested in pursuing any systematic investigation of that nature in the way Senator Church and his committee in the United States Senate are doing in that country.
It is my hope that Senator Church's investigators will come to Canada, and I intend to get in touch with that committee and point out that our government is not interested in investigating the internal practices of the oil companies. Since Senator Church's officials have gone to Italy to investigate the practices of the oil companies there, I see no reason why they should not come to Canada. I have a feeling that what would be discovered in Canada would be just as revealing as what is discovered in Italy.
We do not believe, if all the facts were known, that the government really needs all the additional revenue it says it requires to pay for the additional price of imported oil. If all the facts were known about the price setting devices of the oil companies, I think the amount of revenue needed would be substantially less than is claimed. We agree that some additional revenue is necessary, but we certainly do not believe that the revenue which is to be collected in the amount of $350 million this year and $500 million next year should be collected from the average and low income Canadians who drive automobiles.
I suggest that 90 per cent of the people driving automobiles today use their automobiles to drive to work and drive home again. Therefore the automobile is not a luxury at all. The government is placing a burden of $350 million this year, and $500 million next year, on the aver-

July 24, 1975
Excise Tax Act
age and low Income people, and this the New Democratic Party finds totally unacceptable. But the snickering backbenchers in the Liberal party can say, "Oh well, we over here are dragging this out," and that is really acceptable to them. They will go on saying that for the next three or four years, and then they will trot out some cliche ridden progressive platform just before the next election and try to suck in the people of Canada. I hope that will not happen in 1978.
What could they have done? The Minister of Finance knows that only about six Liberals have dared to speak on this measure, and some of them have asked how else revenue could be raised. Well, we will tell them how to raise revenue: you put a special tax on upper income Canadians. For example, take all Canadians who earn $20,000 or more a year and put a tax on them to get the money that we need to get the additional revenue. That might be a progressive measure, but it would not please all the upper income Canadians who not only vote for the Liberal party but who contribute financially to it. That party does not believe that we should try to redistribute income in this country, redistribute wealth. They like to bring in measures such as this measure and say it is all right for a $6,000 a year income family to pay the same tax-which it will have to with this measure-as a family earning $20,000, $30,000 or $50,000 a year. I repeat that the NDP rejects that approach to taxation.
If the government simply did not want to levy a special tax on upper income Canadians it could have taken it out of general revenue under the existing tax structure to which corporations contribute, and to which all of us contribute on a relatively progressive basis. That is another means it could have used. But no, it chose to levy a flat ten cents a gallon levy which hits disproportionately the average income Canadian.
We in this party have tried to prolong the debate in the House; there is no doubt about that and we make no apology for it. We believe that when an opposition party sees a piece of legislation which it believes to be rotten- as we do in this case-it has an obligation to dig in and fight. I say to you that 80 per cent of the members of our party have spoken in this debate. Of those who have not spoken, some are absent on other important business, and one or two are ill. So we have fulfilled what we regard as our serious political obligation in bringing to the people of Canada the fact, as we see it, that we have a totally unjust tax measure before us introduced by a totally unjust government.
We would like to continue this debate, if we had the support of the official opposition-as we had for a few days, and they vastly out number us-and if they had decided to stay in and fight then all of us together could have prolonged the debate and perhaps we could have got some changes from the government. Perhaps it would have backed down. But we have now concluded that, 80 per cent of our members having spoken, it would be pointless to extend further the second reading debate. Therefore we will let this measure proceed to the committee stage. At that stage we will propose some amendments that go to the heart of this measure, and we hope we will get the support of the official opposition.

We have our doubts about the Minister of Finance, to understate the case by about 1,000 per cent, but we may get the support of the official opposition, and we will try to get some important changes made to the legislation at the committee stage.
I want to conclude by making a special appeal to the Minister of Finance. I want him to pretend that he is back in the days of the minority government. At that time he and some of his colleagues could move, if not an inch, at least two or three millimetres in a progressive direction. Let him pretend that his political life depends on moving incrementally toward a more just society in terms of the distribution of the economic burden in Canada. If he becomes so bound up in such a hallucination, he might agree during the committee stage to have all that voting fodder in the backbenches of the Liberal party agree to some sensible amendments, and if we get some sensible amendments to this measure, we may get a degree of economic justice for the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on the motion in the name of the Minister of Finance. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Call in the members.


Gerald William Baldwin: Ten o'clock. Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the privilege this evening on the adjournment motion of bringing forward
Adjournment Debate
my representations on a very grave crime that is all too prevalent in our nation today, that of extortion. My representations are made pursuant to the question I put to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on May 13, as reported at page 5727 of Hansard, when I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I am sure I voice the concern of all members about the alarming increase in the crime of extortion which is now prevalent in our country ... As a result of the prevalence of the crime of extortion in this country, preying mainly on the banking and financial professions, will the government and the judiciary immediately review this very serious situation and legislate to increase the penalties for such crimes in order to more severely punish and deter those who would commit them?
The minister replied in part:
... I think the question is more one of an enforcement problem and the facilities in that regard. I will be glad to receive any suggestions the hon. member has.
I do have some suggestions to make, Mr. Speaker. I think that short of capital murder, and premeditated murder in all its facets, the most serious problem that besets us today in the line of criminal offences is that of extortion. Rarely do you pick up a daily paper from the metropolitan areas, and from smaller areas also, that you do not read of cases of extortion, most of them carried out successfully by the criminals. They prey mostly on people in the financial sectors of our society and also, from time to time, on those in politics and diplomacy.
I remember many years ago that one of my predecessors in this House of Commons was the target of a local extortion attempt but it was foiled by the law authorities and no physical or financial harm resulted. Today it is all too common to read or hear in the media about a mysterious voice calling a bank manager and saying, "We have your wife and child as prisoners. Put half a million dollars in a certain place. Do not inform the police and no harm will befall your dear ones". In my estimation this is one of the most despicable of all crimes, and as one who in political life has always stood for law and order and the protection of persons and property I intend to see that punishment for such a crime is severe and swift. That is why I asked on May 13 that the minister and his government and the judiciary immediately review this situation, and that with the increase in the frequency of these offences there also be a pro-rata increase in the penalties for such crimes.
If in the past criminals were getting an average of five years for extortion, now give them ten years with hard labour; and if any deaths result from such premeditated action, try them for capital murder. If the jury does not recommend mercy, let them pay with their lives. The same thing applies to the hostage racket in the prisons.
I bring to your attention an article supporting my opinions in today's Ottawa Citizen, written by William Gold, associate editor of the Calgary Herald. In an article headed "A little hanging might be a useful exercise", Mr. Gold has this to say:
Contemporary society is producing a singularly savage type of animal, entirely lacking in comprehension of, or respect for, the lives of other people. These psychopaths know perfectly well what they are doing is wrong legally and morally, but the act of murder causes them absolutely no sense of personal revulsion.

July 24, 1975
Adjournment Debate
I agree here with Mr. Gold. Your Honour and I in this House are reminded that primarily the chief reason for government is the need for protection to persons and property. When we cease to support those principles we should no longer be representing the people. I had that drilled into me by my ancestors, and by predecessors and colleagues in municipal government, yes and in every day life in the region, the county, and community from which I come. I will never desert those principles.
No corporate state should ever relinquish the right to demand the life of any of its citizens convicted of capital crime. The Trudeau government with its permissiveness and laxity is finding this out, but is still refusing to act on it. The government has been operating on the false elitist principles that there are no deterrents to crime. This is not so. The government has not been employing deterrents in their proper severity and force. That is why I ask for an increase in the deterrents to those convicted of extortion. Let the judiciary increase the deterrents. As soon as it is known through extortion circles that the penalties are greater, the frequency of incidents will recede. It will work. It worked many years ago in the 1930's in Ontario.
During the depression chicken thievery became so prevalent that there was hardly a farmer in Ontario who did not not suffer from raids on his chicken house. Up to that time chicken stealing was regarded on the same plane as Hallowe'en pranks. It was rather lightly regarded. The demand was raised for stiffer penalties for chicken stealing. The government of Ontario through its magistrates responded to that demand and imposed stiffer penalties commensurate with the crime. Chicken stealing very soon became a rare occurrence, and we hardly ever hear of it any more. Increase the penalty-decrease crime.
I have further information and statistics, but we do not have the time for them tonight. We have been informed that extortion has been so prevalent, especially in Montreal and vicinity, that since November last well over $1 million has been successfully extorted by the underworld from citizens in that area in 13 different cases. This occurs not only in Montreal; it is prevalent in Ontario and the western part of the country as well.
In closing I ask the Minister of Justice to use all his influence to see that those convicted of extortion are more severely punished in a manner commensurate with the enormity of their crimes.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code creates various crimes of extortion. The most notable of these comes under section 305 which provides a penalty of 14 years' imprisonment for inducement or attempted inducement. Subsection (1) reads as follows:
Everyone who, without reasonable excuse and with intent to extort or gain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused, menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
Section 266(1) of the Code stipulates:
Everyone commits an offence who, with intent 
(a)	to extort money from any person, or
(b)	to induce a person to confer upon or procure for another person
an appointment or office of profit or trust, publishes or theatens to
publish-
And so forth. I will spare you the rest.
In addition, section 266(2) creates an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for publishing a defamatory libel. The Criminal Code also makes it an offence to threaten or intimidate people whether or not the threat or intimidation was done with the intent to extort anything of value. Numerous other provisions of the Criminal Code overlap with the extortion provisions and some of these have penalties up to life imprisonment.
In recent times the entire trend has been away from prescribing minimum penalties for offences under the Criminal Code. The rationale is that those directly involved in the administration of justice generally hold the view that the courts should be left with a discretion to impose whatever sentence they consider fit having regard to the circumstances of the particular case. The Attorney General of a province, or his agent, can always appeal the sentence.
The maximum terms of imprisonment under section 305 is fourteen years and this appears to provide sufficient flexibility to the judiciary in imposing sentence. The present maximum does, I think, reflect the public's general disapprobation towards this kind of conduct.
While I agree with my hon. friend that the problem is serious, I refer here, naturally, to the administration of justice, I do allow myself to disagree with him on capital punishment. I do not believe in the law of the underworld, the law of settling of accounts, the law of mutual assassinations as a solution to our problems. And I feel that we should now have, naturally, more severe penalties. I shall therefore convey the recommendations of my hon. friend to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), for I do agree that extortion is a serious crime which calls for appropriate sanctions, but I disagree with him on capital punishment, which he recommends, yet I respect his opinion.


PUBLIC WORKS-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN REGULATIONS TO PERMIT PEOPLE IN NORTHERN AREAS TO RENT PREMISES OWNED BY DEPARTMENT
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday in the absence of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which had been referred to me by my colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). If he had been here he would have asked the question, but he was attending meetings in the Northwest Territories, and he called upon me, because of the crisis proportions of this problem, and asked me to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
So that you may be aware of the question, Mr. Speaker, I said:
In view of the housing crisis in the Northwest Territories and the fact that in the Yukon-
July 24, 1975

At that time I should have said Yellowknife.
-small apartments are renting for as much as $400 a month, and in view of the fact the Department of Public Works have vacant in the Yukon 130 homes, 200 detached homes and some apartments, and some of the homes have been vacant for as long as five years, and in view of the fact there is a regulation ... of the Department of Public Works not to rent to employees who are local people who reside in the area, will the Prime Minister change the restrictive and discriminatory rule and permit local people to rent these vacant homes and apartments to ease the critical housing shortage . ..
In a supplementary I also said:
Is the Prime Minister aware that the same problem pertains in Fort Smith, Hay River and Inuvik and that the local people feel that if persons are from the south they can get accommodation whereas if they are from the local area they are denied accommodation? Will the Prime Minister also direct his attention to this and have this very serious problem cleared up?
You, Mr. Speaker, can appreciate the critical housing situation in the Northwest Territories, and in particular in Yellowknife, Hay River, Inuvik and Fort Smith where housing has reached a crisis stage. People are paying exorbitant rents for apartments while there are vacant apartments, homes, and detached houses which are owned by the Department of Public Works, in respect of which there is a rule which states that they can be rented only to people who come from the south to work in the Northwest Territories. If this is the case, and it must be the case because my colleague from the Northwest Territories is greatly concerned and exercised about it, then it is high time the Minister of Public Works set in motion changes in the regulations concerning these homes.
Many times I have heard the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) say that housing should be a basic right for all Canadians and that it should be available at affordable prices. If that is the case and if it is the philosophy of the government, and we have a crisis situation in certain areas of the Northwest Territories, then it is incumbent upon the minister to change those regulations so that those vacant properties may be rented to the people in the area.
If there is anything worse than discrimination it is the feeling people in the Northwest Territories have that the people from the south get better privileges than the people from the north and the local area. This has been the thrust of the rule which applies at the moment. I would hope that the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Turner) would get up and say there are vacancies in respect of homes, apartments, and so on in the north, that there is this restriction which has been working against the people in the local area, and that he will see that changes are made to ease the housing problem and also ease the feeling of discrimination the people in the north have. I look forward to the answer by the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works is responsible for the administration of pool housing in the north and can only answer for units which are connected with this program. Other northern housing programs are administered by the individual departments involved.
In the Northwest Territories there is a total of 782 pool housing units available. At the present time there are 51
Adjournment Debate
units vacant and awaiting the arrival of known occupants. An additional 37 units are vacant, with no known requirements. This represents a vacancy factor of less than 5 per cent, which is considered reasonable in this program when consideration is given to seasonal work and other fluctuations.
In Whitehorse there are 84 houses available of which three are vacant at the present time. The figures change from month to month, but three to five vacant at any one time is the average.
The regulation to which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) referred is T.B. No. 552212 pool housing policy and procedures. This regulation, we understand, is being considered for review by Treasury Board officials.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-ALLEGED REDUCTION IN EXPENDITURES FOR FORCE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on behalf of a beleaguered group which, more than any other institution in Canada, represents the qualities of dignity, fairness, perseverance and responsibility to the people of the world. I speak of course of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Whereas in other countries the police are easily passed off as "cops" and "pigs", in Canada we still speak proudly of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Whereas in bygone days the force could devote all of their attention to getting their man, today they have to be on their guard lest some man gets them. I speak not of the criminal who, by commitment, has devoted his life and energies to fight against the forces of law and order; I speak rather of the governments and their bureaucrats who make it more and more difficult for the police to do their work, who make the police officers the victims of an unnecessary power struggle. I speak on behalf of the people of Canada who are the victims, the innocent bystanders who become the victims of this power struggle. Let me illustrate.
There is a well known understanding among the police forces across Canada that there is a 6 per cent guideline limiting the expansion of RCMP facilities province by province. Hon. members must understand of course that this is not related in any way to the crime rate in any given province, it is not related to the present understaffing of the police forces in any specific area, and it is not related to the requests of the forces in these local areas, but rather it is an arbitrary decision agreed upon by the cabinet which ignores the crime needs of communities faced by mounting lawlessness and mounting juvenile delinquency, and that in itself becomes a crime in its own right.
It is not enough that the police force has to fight crime; it now must also fight for its own existence. Then there is the trade off power brokerage between the federal government and the provincial governments.
Right now the federal government pays 50 per cent of the expense of maintaining the first four officers in any given community, and 25 per cent of the expense of maintaining all the other officers beyond the first four. But the contract for the RCMP, especially in British Columbia,

July 24, 1975
Adjournment Debate
expires on December 31, 1975. Now the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) wants to renegotiate that contract. He wants to make municipalities pay 85 per cent of the entire cost of maintaining the RCMP forces in any given municipality in British Columbia.
Think what that means for a municipality like Surrey-White Rock. Here is a municipality which has inherited all of the problems of racial tension as a result of federal immigration policies. It has inherited the problems of congested housing, again the result of inadequate federal housing policies. It is inheriting drug trafficking problems because of the shortcomings within the judicial system, and because of the half-hearted support given the police forces by the federal government. In total, the local governments have a gun held to their heads. On the one hand they have the problems that face them for which there is no immediate solution, and on the other hand they are not being given the tools to do the job. And in the future the government wants to restrict their efforts even further. The local governments have no bargaining power but are faced with mounting problems issuing from the policies or non-policies of the federal government.
I would be the first to admit there is a need for fiscal restraint by the government. There are many places where we can be critical of federal government spending; there are many "give away" programs that are ought to be eliminated; there are many people who have destroyed their own sense of the work ethic and who are being given handouts by the federal government. There are hundreds of ways in which we can exercise fiscal restraint.
As long as I have letters from my constituents telling me that they are afraid to go out at night I will do my best to press the government not to exercise fiscal restraint in this area. I believe that members of the RCMP are doing yeoman's duty working against all odds, and ought not to be the victims of this kind of disservice. I beg the Solicitor General to reconsider his plan to be tight fisted in his forthcoming policy, and to give the RCMP forces in British Columbia the kind of support they deserve and sorely need.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, on July 9 the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) asked me how I could justify supporting a cabinet guideline to hold expenditures for law enforcement
establishments at 6 percent. I answered that I was not sure that there was such a guideline for our department, but I did say that there would be certain cuts with respect to the RCMP and the penitentiary service but that they would be kept to a minimum in the province of British Columbia.
I should now like to give further answer to the hon. member.
In 1975-76 the RCMP was granted 1,009 additional man-years, for an increase of approximately 6 per cent over the previous year. The province of British Columbia was granted 244 of those additional man-years for 1975-76, for an increase of 7.2 per cent, which was a greater increase than that for the RCMP nationally during that year.
The recent cutback of 1 per cent on the man-years establishment will affect the RCMP nationally with a cut of 178 man-years to be implemented over a period of 1 Vi years. This will mean that the planned increase for 1975-76 for the RCMP will be reduced to approximately 5 per cent.
I want to emphasize to the hon. member, however, that any such reductions will be applied to low priority tasks for the RCMP and low priority regions. In this respect the RCMP consider British Columbia a very high priority region. As I mentioned, the increase in man-years originally allocated for British Columbia in 1975-76 was higher than the national average. I should point out that the shortage of police in British Columbia in 1975 is in a great measure due to the attitude of the former Socred government which, year after year, cut back on the suggested manpower for the RCMP in British Columbia for provincial policing. As a result, the new provincial government and the federal government are attempting to do a lot of catching up.
In conclusion let me say that some of these matters are now being reviewed as part of our work to provide a more effective crime prevention program for the autumn. I want to assure the House that we will do everything possible to provide additional protection for the public against crime, while respecting the government's general program for restraint in lower priority tasks and areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands ajourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Friday, July 25, 1975