1975-07-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the new developments in federal-provincial relations on the matter of communications, following the worsening dispute over the sharing of powers and responsibilities, and the insistence of the provinces to seek jurisdiction over the fields of broadcasting, telecommunication corporations and particularly cablevision, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House now start discussions on the whole matter of communications in order to clarify the situation definitively by bringing up all data relevant to the debate, including the power and cost sharing issue, in view of paving the way for enacting legislation which will be presented to the House in the fall, and which aims at totally restructuring the whole field of communications.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion may not be put.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: 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.
As food products such as milk and bread are basic to the dietary needs of the Canadian people, as the cost of milk and bread has increased at a staggering rate, and as low-income families have been more severely burdened by that
increase, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House take the necessary steps to study the possibilities and urgency of setting up a system of compensated discount to the consumer with a view to lowering immediately the cost of consumer products and increasing the purchasing power of the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 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 not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday Statistics Canada released the unemployment figures for the month of June. These statistics showed that the unemployment in the province of Newfoundland stood at 17.9 per cent, which is considerably more than twice the national rate. I would move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard):
That the government of Canada step up its labour-intensive capital works projects in high unemployment areas as called for in the June 23 budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 16, 1975
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the information given the House yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I would ask the government House leader whether he stands behind the answer he gave me on June 27? At that time I asked the minister:
Is it the position of the government that the contract for the Cordoba nuclear generating plant.. . made provision for subsequent negotiation of safeguards-
In reply the minister said:
-the answer to the first part of the question is yes, the contract is subject to a bilateral agreement on safeguards.
Later on the minister said:
I am informed there is no doubt about the fact that the fulfilment of the contract itself depends upon a bilateral agreement on adequate safeguards.
Does the minister stand behind that?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think both statements are true. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said the contract itself had provision for safeguards. In addition, in December, 1974, the government upgraded its safeguards and the fulfilment of that contract is now subject to further negotiation of a bilateral agreement.


Mr. Baldwin:: It is time you upgraded the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Was there any provision in that contract negotiated with Argentina in 1973 requiring subsequent negotiation of safeguards, other than the agreement to be negotiated with IAEA, to which the minister referred yesterday?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Sir, that contract was just according to the then general safeguard policy of Canada, namely, the international standard. As my colleague has indicated, the additional standards for the completion of the Argentine contract have been, if you like, unilaterally imposed by Canada at a subsequent date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right. In other words, the answer the government House leader gave me on June 27, in which he persisted today, was wrong and misleading?


Gerald William Baldwin: That's not new; that is average.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, you are misleading the House.
[Mr. Speaker.)


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF NEGOTIATION OF ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: It
is now very clear that the only provision relating to the contract negotiated in 1973 for the subsequent provision of safeguards was the provision in relation to negotiation with the international agency. It is very clear there was no provision for subsequent negotiation of safeguards in a bilateral agreement with Canada. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs approximately when it was that Canada notified Argentina it was not satisfied with the safeguards negotiated in the 1973 agreement, or the provision for safeguards in that agreement, and when did Canada notify Argentina of its desire to reopen the question? Was it a few weeks ago?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I cannot give the information from memory, Mr. Speaker, but I will check into it. I know it has been in play for sometime, certainly since the announcement made by my colleague on December 20, 1974. Subsequent to that date, we have been pursuing with the authorities of Argentina a bilateral safeguards agreement which has not yet been concluded. We hope negotiations are in their final stages.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF NOTES EXCHANGED
Allan Joseph MacEachen: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I might tell the Leader of the Official Opposition, with reference to the question he asked recently about the exchanges of notes between the government of Canada and the government of Argentina, that in the tabling of those notes all the notes were included, including the one I said would be tabled later.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And they don't amount to much.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was included in the tabling at that time.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF SAFEGUARDS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in view of this government's sorry record in respect of safeguards in this extremely important matter, I should like to get back to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This seems like a very weird procedure whereby you sign a firm agreement and worry about the safeguards later. In spite of the fact that these safeguards are still under negotiation, according to the minister's colleague just now, surely we in this House and the Canadian public in general are entitled to know at this stage just what safeguards the Canadian government is seeking in respect of this Argentina project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could just confirm to the hon. gentleman again that the contract entered into in 1973 was in accord with the existing safe-
July 16, 1975

guards, recognized by the international community, pursuant to the action of the International Atomic Energy Agency. At that time the international standards did not provide for restriction on explosions expressed to be for peaceful rather than weapons purposes. Canada decided as a matter of principle, subsequent to the Indian explosion, to put on a higher level of standards which were set out in the statement I made on December 20, namely-I will repeat them as I believe I have several times already in this House-that the Canadian technology and Canadian equipment, including the CANDU reactor itself, or material supplied by Canada whether it be heavy water, the uranium, or the spent fuel resulting from the processing or the operation of the Canadian reactor would not be applied for explosive purposes and that the material would not be available to other parties for explosive purposes. These were the safeguards that were set out on December 20, and I would invite the hon. member to read that statement again because it is comprehensive.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have re-read it and still do not-


An hon. Member:: Understand it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I still do not have a very clear understanding. I will admit that. The difference between me and the minister is I admit it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Will the minister confirm that there is still a very large gap in respect of the actual title passing to Argentina with regard to those spent fuel rods? Does the minister honestly believe that this type of safeguard is worth anything at all if Canada, or any other supplier, may have no further control over those spent fuel rods after they go through the reactor.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I just
answered that question. I can understand that perhaps we have to keep repeating this to the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham. I indicated that the spent fuel to be used in a Canadian reactor or a reactor not constructed in Canada but with Canadian technology at a later date or one using fuel supplied by Canada, may not subsequently be applied for any weapons making purpose. There is no gap in the coverage of safeguards. I take it that what the hon. gentleman is objecting to, which is his real point, is that, of course, Canada should not rely on the undertakings or obligations of other countries. This is, of course, a viewpoint he can take in international relations but certainly it is not the standard which has been set down for the world generally in the non-proliferation treaty.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on a final
supplementary.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Thank you, Sir. An assertion was made about my understanding. I would like to hear the minister's definition of what is a nuclear weapon. That is really what it boils down to, because certainly in the case of India and of other potential users right now there is a grave difference between weaponry and just plain explosion. Certainly, when he talks about nuclear weaponry he is a year behind the times.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which concerns the rights of more than 250,000 federal civil servants and arises from the recent three-months suspension of the president of a civil service union. I refer to Mr. Arthur Stewart. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he shares the view of the Minister of Supply and Services who was quoted in this particular instance confirming his approval of the suspension as follows:
I'm prepared to be criticized by my peers, but not by an employee.
My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: since it has implications beyond that particular department, is it the government's view that an elected trade union official within the federal civil service does not have the right to criticize departmental policy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would not comment on this particular case without studying it in detail. I have not discussed the particular matter with the minister, but I must say that in principle I agree with the stand he has taken that it is not proper for civil servants to criticize and make political statements against the government. This is a long standing rule and we do not intend to change it.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the issue at stake is the effective right of an elected official of the employees to do the job for which he was elected, is it the view of the Prime Minister that an elected representative of the employees working for the government cannot exercise his trade union responsibilities in the same way that trade union representatives outside the public service are expected to do, whether they are criticizing General Motors, General Electric or any of the other "Generals"? Is he saying that there is to be a difference between the rights of representatives of workers in the federal government and representatives of workers in the private sector?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say whether the hon. member believes or whether it is in practice the right of a trade union member to make political statements against the government which employs him. But I repeat to him, if that is what he thinks, it is not government policy and we oppose it. We do not believe that this impinges on the trade union rights of union leaders. This government has institutionalized unionism in the government, and we have given employees the right to strike legitimately. But in so far as political statements or criticisms of government policy are concerned, we object to that, and if that was the situation, I approve of the action taken by the minister.

July 16, 1975


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that the deputy minister of the department in question made a distinction between a full time elected union official and a part time official-the implication being that it was permitted for a full time trade union official to make the broad ranging criticism that is normally believed to be the right of a trade union official-and considering that the government in the Post Office, for example, has never considered it inappropriate to criticize the head of the postal workers union for criticizing the administration of the Post Office, would the Prime Minister soon undertake to make a statement in the House or in some other form make it very clear what the government's policy is in this respect, and make sure that what is appropriately seen to be the right method of behaving in one department is also applied in another department?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not intend to make a statement on this beyond what I have just said, and I cannot follow the tortuous logic of the hon. member who seems to feel that trade union officials somehow escape from the rules that apply to civil servants generally. The rule is that they should not indulge in political criticism of the government or of their minister. It is a very simple rule and it was applied a few months or a few weeks ago to a high ranking officer in the Department of National Defence, and it applies to civilians also.


REQUEST FOR OIL COMPANIES TO FIND MEANS OTHER THAN PRICE INCREASES FOR RECOVERING INCREASED COSTS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The third paragraph of a press release in which the minister made public the message he had sent to the Canadian oil industry reads as follows:
Companies affected by the additional cost increases resulting from the changes in the approach to the oil import compensation program may try to recover these costs by means other than raising posted prices.
Could the minister explain what he meant by that? Was he recommending that oil companies use devious means to achieve their purpose?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the oil companies for information concerning their expectations as to the wholesale prices of oil products after August 15, in view of the price increase for crude oil here in Canada. In this press release, I indicated that price rises were possible because of the price increase for crude oil, but that other increases were not to be included in the increase of the wholesale price. There will be probably applications for higher compensations because of other costs of oil products. We have asked the companies to justify their claims before they insist on further increases.
[Mr. Trudeau.)


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister. In less than one month we will see the anniversary of Canada s global quotas, especially as they relate to Canada-United States cattle and beef trade. Over recent weeks cattle and beef imports from the United States have been averaging somewhere around 1,500 lightweight slaughter cattle which are non-quota. Another third of a million pounds of carcass beef is coming in from the United States, plus Australian imports which do indeed include some trans-shipment of beef through the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, would he please put it.


Mr. Nowlan:: What about Broadbent when he puts his questions?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He hasn't asked as many as Broadbent.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Now that the government has its stabilization bill passed through the House, does the Prime Minister not feel that the time is most appropriate to make the promised statement on Canada-United States agricultural trade negotiations, quota renewals and a support price policy which will have to change after August 11?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the possibility of a statement and on what occasion, I will draw the attention of the minister to the hon. member's question, but I can assure the hon. member that this matter has been discussed by the minister, that it is under review, and I believe that negotiations are under way with the United States.


POSSIBILITY OF INTRODUCTION OF MEAT IMPORT LAW-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Another farmer.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: In view of the obvious problems of the government involving cattle and beef at the United States border, which now may very well include eggs and the import problems with the egg industry, has the government given serious consideration to a Canadian meat import law somewhat similar to the United States meat import law as an alternative to the present system of border regulations? I ask this question in view of the

July 16, 1975

meeting which is scheduled to take place this Friday in Washington which will involve Canadian and United States negotiations on this serious border situation.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. There will be a meeting in Washington this Friday. It follows upon a meeting which took place in Ottawa within the last few weeks between Canadian and United States officials with a view toward solving the impasse with respect to cattle and beef products moving both ways. It is our hope that out of these negotiations there will come a solution. For that reason, there is not under active consideration at the present time the kind of meat import law to which the hon. member has referred.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the government of Canada will be conducting a west coast highway access study in the very near future, and in view of the fact that a national parks spokesman stated in Calgary recently that the policy of the minister's department has not changed since the decision some time ago that there would not be development providing central western Canada with an access to central British Columbia, and vice versa, through the Howse pass, would the minister be prepared to state unequivocally that he and his department will approach this study with an open mind and reconsider that earlier decision, if it is found to be in the best interests of the majority, and proceed with the Howse pass project?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, was the national parks spokesman merely stating a personal opinion or is that in fact departmental policy?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the statement by this individual but we will be happy to look at the results of this study which I believe is being conducted by the Department of Transport.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the fact
Oral Questions
that the recently defeated leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party has joined ranks with the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and other Liberal members of this government, will the Prime Minister not now concede that terrorists of any ilk have no permission to enter Canada and are not welcome here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no other concession I have to make, Mr. Speaker. I stated unequivocally in the House about a week ago that the government was unalterably opposed to terrorism of any kind.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question. In view of that answer will the Prime Minister assure the House that when a decision is finally reached on the entry of the PLO into Canada that a statement will be made to this House so that questions and comments can be directed to the government at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course, if the House is around when we make the decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MIDDLE EAST-REFUSAL OF EGYPT TO RENEW MANDATE OF UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONTINUED PARTICIPATION
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


An hon. Member:: You were in charge of the delegation when the invitation went out, Bob!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In view of the stated intention of Egypt to refuse consent to renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force in the Sinai, has the government discussed the future of this force after this month with the United Nations and the other governments directly concerned? Also, has the government or will the government insist on a continuation of the UN mandate as a condition of Canada's continued participation in that force?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the information about the intentions of Egypt were made known to us last night, I believe. Discussions are going on at the United Nations presently on this very subject.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-MONITORING OF PRICE INCREASES AND POSSIBILITY OF ROLLING BACK UNWARRANTED INCREASES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. How does the government propose to monitor, on an ongoing basis, price increases in petroleum products so that they conform to federal guidelines and will any
7622

July 16, 1975
Oral Questions
monitoring agency have the power to roll back unwarranted price increases?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the procedures followed by the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, and previously by the department itself, in monitoring the wholesale price will continue. I could indicate to the hon. gentleman that if we find in any circumstance a company has overcharged in respect of any prices, it will be expected to make good that overcharge to its customers or run the risk of a reduction in its compensation payments pursuant to the Petroleum Administration Act.


OIL-BASIS FOR CALCULATING LENGTH OF DELAY BEFORE INCREASING PRICE
Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question. Could the minister explain why the federal government has arrived at the figure of 45 days for a delay in oil price increases whereas the province of Ontario has calculated the delay should be 90 days? Is it a minimum or average calculation and does the federal government know how much old priced oil will be left on hand after the 45 days?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is not just a question of old priced oil, it is also a question of what inventory and particular products would be available. The 45 day figure, which was in operation last year and again this year, represents the lowest common denominator. The standard in this regard is dictated by smaller refineries such as the Saskatchewan Co-operative Refinery which for economic reasons could not sustain a further delay. The Ontario government of course felt that the companies operating within that province can bear that additional cost and for that reason has imposed the additional period. We have to deal, of course, on a national basis.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In response to questions recorded in Hansard on March 21 and April 17 regarding the future of the Mackenzie highway, the minister indicated on both occasions that his department was giving consideration to the matter. Could the minister now advise the House if a decision has been made regarding the future of the highway?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to slow down the proposed building of this highway. The intention would be to earmark some of the funds that have been allocated for that highway to speed up the construction of the Dempster highway, the highway at CarcrossShagway and the Liard Highways.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the report last night that some or all of the PLO delegates are already in Canada, can the minister tell the House if the government knows who these delegates are and how many of them are already in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question. I think the matter of immigration is the responsibility of my colleague.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, may I then redirect a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? In light of the report last night that some or all of the PLO delegates are already in Canada, can the minister tell the House if the government knows who these delegates are and how many of them are already in the country?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, no PLO delegates from other countries, identified as such, have entered this country with permission of any department of the government. It is possible, however, that this may have some reference to the suggestion that a Canadian citizen may be chosen as the representative of that organization-or even a United States citizen for all I know-but there are no PLO delegates as such in the country to my knowledge.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice concerning the recommendation made recently by a joint federal-provincial task force concerning another transportation link between New Brunswick and the western part of Prince Edward Island. In view of the involvement of the Department of Transport and its study of the same question, could the minister indicate whether his department concurs with the recommendation and when there might be some action on it?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows a study was made by the P.E.I. government and also one by my own department. We are now studying both reports and we hope to reach a conclusion very soon.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the government of New Brunswick has already made its own recommendations, and I understand that the possibility of concurrence in the same recommendation is likely from the government study, can the minister give us a firm indication of when the federal
July 16, 1975

study will be made public or some statement as to the action on that study?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am in no position to say when it will be made public. As soon as we have reached a conclusion it will, of course, be made public.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the situation which first arose on July 10, when unofficial teamsters' pickets appeared at the United States side of the Peace Bridge between Buffalo and Fort Erie with a view to minimizing, if not blocking, the operations of Canadian truckers in the United States. If so, what action is the minister taking or will take regarding this situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not aware of this situation and I should like to have any information that the hon. gentleman can give me.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? As trucks bound for the United States have been diverted from the Peace Bridge at Fort Erie to the Rainbow Bridge at Queenston, causing needless delay and customs clearance difficulties, and noting that the United States National Labour Relations Board has termed the picketing as an unfair labour practice but that the picketing will continue because the teamster locals will not meet to resolve the situation, will the minister urge the United States government to expedite a meeting of the parties involved, before the difficulty spreads to other Canada-U.S. border crossing points?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will investigate the representations which the hon. gentleman has made, and if there is any constructive role we can play, we will be glad to do it.


SALE OF TAINTED MEAT IN QUEBEC-POSSIBILITY OF PROSECUTIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Notwithstanding the misleading and deceptive answer the minister give to the committee on May 27-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: -but bearing in mind the truthful answer he made in the House on June 19, when he said that the government's suspicions had been aroused as far back as 1968 about tainted meat and meat unfit for human consumption being sold in Quebec, may I ask the minister, now that the police inquiry in Quebec is over, if he will assure the House that he intends to proceed, pursuant to his statutory authority under the Food and Drugs Act, to make arrests and lay charges in the province of Quebec, or what cheap, flimsy excuse does he have for the country?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter is in the hands of the Crown legal advisers.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, who I hope will take a somewhat more responsible attitude to the people of Quebec than the Minister of National Health and Welfare has taken?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the serious revelations coming out of the Quebec police inquiry, indicating beyond any shadow of doubt that federal statutes were violated in Quebec, particularly the Food and Drugs Act, may I ask the minister if he is now prepared to tell the House and the people of Quebec that they are entitled to the same protection as is the rest of the country, and will he immediately proceed to lay charges under the Food and Drugs Act?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, of course, it is our policy to investigate matters which are within our jurisdiction and properly come to our attention and then at the conclusion of the investigation, where that is warranted, to lay charges. That is the practice. But it is also the practice not to comment on those investigations in detail in the meantime.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and has to do with the serious problem concerning the currency of this country. I am sure many Canadians became accustomed last year, when I raised the matter with the Minister of Finance, to seeing many merchants refuse to accept our $50 and $100 bills. We eagerly awaited the issue of the
29576 - 6912

July 16, 1975
Oral Questions
new currency. I need not remind the minister of the value of having these bills-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question to ask, perhaps he will put it to the minister.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I ask what steps the minister has planned to protect the currency system in Canada, since the new bills which are issued as legal tender are still being refused, as evidence by a memo to cashiers signed two days ago by Mr. W. E. Pentecost, manager of the Parliamentary Restaurant in this building?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, some members enjoy credit in the Parliamentary Restaurant. I will look into that particular matter.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion? Has an agreement relating to the second phase of the comprehensive development plan been signed between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island and, if not, when will it be signed?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member used the word "signed." Actually, the official signing has not yet taken place. I think it is appropriate to say that all details of the agreement have been worked out. There was to have been a final meeting on July 9, to be followed by a submission to Treasury Board for the necessary funds. I expect to sign within a couple of weeks after that-let us say, some time in August.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the House that the agreement, when it is signed, will include a provision recognizing the need for non-governmental organizations to be publicly funded, for purposes of community development in particular?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think I replied to a similar question previously. The answer is yes. To the best of my knowledge, in the last draft agreement I saw, we made provision for the type of funding to which the hon. member referred. There will be questions as to which organizations will receive the funding.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has been brought to my attention that some new Canadian citizens in my riding fear to visit their country of birth lest they be conscripted for military service. In some cases, I believe this risk extends to their Canadian-born sons. Would the minister consider negotiating with the appropriate countries to ensure that the rights of Canadian citizens are fully recognized?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. lady's concern in this case. I also understand that in some countries there is a system of dual citizenship. Because this dual citizenship system exists, these contingencies occur. I will follow up the question and see what can be done.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of doubts which have risen with respect to Pickering airport, would the minister consider diverting and transferring sufficient funds from that project to accelerate long needed improvements to airport facilities, including passenger, baggage, cargo and terminal facilities, in particular at Moncton airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it clear that Mr. Rhodes, speaking for the government of Ontario, is not opposed necessarily to an airport at Pickering, but that he wanted to discuss the financial implications for Ontario. He is not ready to accept the airport under any conditions unless we can come to an agreement. I think we are going to meet. I sent a wire to Mr. Rhodes. I hope that we are going to agree on the details of any future airport at Pickering.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That was the question last week.


Jean Marchand: But you never said "no."


HARBOURS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a short question to the Prime Minister? As, to my knowledge, the resolution passed by the council of the city of Hamilton in the latter part of 1974 demanding a full, open or judicial inquiry into Hamilton
July 16, 1975

harbour has not been withdrawn-actually, Alderman William McCulloch has been making representations to that end-may I ask if the government has made up its mind about this particular resolution, and when we can expect an announcement in that regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yes, the announcement has already been made.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister knows, at the recent International Labour Organization meeting the Canadian government supported, by an affirmative vote, an amendment which would have demanded that the PLO would have to agree to the continued sovereign existence of any member state which belongs to the International Labour Organization and also subscribes to the Principles of the ILO. My question to the minister is this: that being the position of the Canadian government a few weeks ago in the International Labour Organization, can the minister tell the House whether there has been any attempt made, either directly or indirectly, to express that position to representatives of the PLO or any other people representing the Palestinians in an effort to maintain the same consistent position as the government took a few weeks ago at Geneva?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government has not at any time recognized the PLO as one of the representatives or as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. I am surprised the hon. member would suggest that the Government of Canada make official representations to the PLO.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Perhaps the minister would be surprised to know that the Canadian public would be surprised to find out that, according to what the minister says, no attempt is apparently being made to exert some pressure to get the PLO to withdraw its condition, which is the extermination of Israel, before becoming a part of the United Nations family and coming to this country. My question to the minister is this. Has the government given any consideration to expressing the fact, indirectly or through the United Nations officials, that the Canadian government's major objection to the PLO is its stated aim to extinguish the State of Israel and, of course, its terrorist activities. If there has been no attempt to make this position clear on the part of the Canadian government, why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That position was made perfectly clear by myself in my speech to the General Assembly on the
Oral Questions
Palestinian question. If the hon. member will read that speech he will find that at the General Assembly these points were made very clearly and, I believe, forcefully.


OIL-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE SUPPLIES FOR ATLANTIC PROVINCES IN VIEW OF STRIKE OF HARBOUR PILOTS AT HALIFAX
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Can
the Prime Minister, in the light of the worsening situation in Halifax arising out of the continuing strike of harbour pilots, tell us what plans the government has to secure energy supplies not only for Nova Scotia but for the other provinces which I believe are involved-New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. What steps are being contemplated to secure the source of crude oil to the refineries so that domestic oil, oil for industry, heating oil and car fuel can be assured to the people of the Atlantic provinces? As I understand it, as of now there is less than two days supply of crude oil left in the refineries in the Atlantic provinces and we face the possibility of running out of fuel in the next two days.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member's question expresses the government's concern over this matter. In such cases we have contingency plans, but I must confess I do not know the details of them. I will make inquiries.


TRANSPORT
J. Michael Forrestall: May I
direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport because it is his department which is presently involved in negotiations with the pilots. Would he use his good offices to bring the seriousness of this situation to the attention of his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, and urge him to take some initiative, to make some effort, particularly in the light of the fact that the harbour pilots and the ministry, or the Atlantic harbour authority on whose behalf the ministry is negotiating, are possibly only 3 or 4 per cent apart. It seems to me that if some initiative is shown at the bargaining table this situation could be resolved.


Jean Marchand: I have already met with the president of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority and of course I encouraged him to try to solve this problem. At the same time, naturally, we are looking at the situation related to the question which the hon. member put to the Prime Minister with a view to ensuring that the maritime provinces are not deprived of any of the oil they need.

July 16, 1975
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


NGUYEN TAN DOI-CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING REINSTATEMENT AS LANDED IMMIGRANT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that Nguyen Tan Doi, presently living in Montreal, returned to South Viet Nam from Canada for possibly two and a half years and was elected to the South Vietnamese Congress, apparently re-establishing his domicile in that country, a situation which should have voided his previous Canadian immigrant status, I would like to ask the minister just what the circumstances were surrounding his reinstatement as a landed immigrant to Canada, keeping in mind that he was safe in a camp in Thailand after the fall of Saigon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member surely realizes that the minister would not be able to answer that kind of question during the remaining minutes of the question period.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have another run at the Minister of Transport today. Yesterday I asked the minister whether the government would make an announcement before the recess, or before his appointment to the Senate, at least, on the cabinet decision regarding the appeal of the Consumers Association of Canada in connection with the recent air fare hikes, and in particular an explanation of an announcement by the minister who chose to aggravate the cross-subsidization of short-haul routes by western long-haul routes. I ask the minister again to answer the question I put to him yesterday and say when an announcement will be made by the cabinet correcting this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs? In response to a question posed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on July 14, 1975 and reported at page 7525 of Hansard, the minister stated he still had faith in the ability of the private AHOP program to stimulate housing starts during this year, and that he was working closely with private lenders in achieving this end. Since the minister has been working with these, to

use his words "enthusiastic lenders", he should also be aware that these lending agencies have no new funds available for this program-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Stan Darling: -and that these lenders cannot make further funds available just because the federal government has increased the AHOP subsidy as reported in Hudac s Focus of July 14, 1975. In view of this fact, is the minister ready to concede that due to the unavailability of mortgage funding, private AHOP will not stimulate house construction this year-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Stan Darling: -and funds must be rechannelled into alternate programs if this goal is to be met?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not ready to concede by a long shot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: In view of the fact that co-op housing appears to be the only bright light in the housing field this year,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: -and since all indications are that mortgage funding is only marginally available for this type of dwelling, does the minister intend to make any new allocation of funds to this program in order that the demand for co-op housing can be met with adequate mortgage funds?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am amassing all the funds available, strategically, so as to reinforce each area of success, including co-operative and non-profit housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I asked a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and he appeared about to answer. I simply want to ask why Mr. Doi was readmitted with the same landed immigrant status.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moncton on a point of order.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I think I asked a fair, reasonable and non-political question of the Minister of Transport but apparently he did not hear it or understand it, or both. I rose to ask a supplementary so that the minister would understand it. I was desirous of finding out whether the minister, while waiting for a decision on Pickering airport, would divert some of the funds to the Moncton airport to make long needed improvements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I understood the minister, he simply said that there was no decision not to use the funds for the Pickering airport and therefore I went on to another question. It is as simple as that.
July 16, 1975


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Minister of Transport, and the purpose in asking the question was that the minister had clearly misunderstood the intent of the question I asked yesterday, when I asked him about an appeal to cabinet and he referred to an investigation by the CTC into the matter of air fares. I was merely trying to get an answer to the question about an appeal by the Consumer's Association to the cabinet. Your Honour recognized another member, but I was not repeating the question that I asked yesterday. In view of the misunderstanding, I think it is only fair to ask the minister whether in fact the cabinet is going to make a decision and an announcement on this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: That, as the hon. member has well stated, was precisely the question he put yesterday, not once but twice. The minister gave an answer with which the hon. member was not satisfied. When recognized today the hon. member said that he wanted another answer to the same question, and in doing so invited me to do the only thing I could do, which was to rule that he had repeated his question for the third time. Other members have suffered from the same deficiency before and have met with the same result.


LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to routine proceedings I know hon. members would want me to take just 30 seconds to make an announcement. I think all hon. members share the pride we have in the very excellent Library of Parliament that serves the Canadian Parliament, both the Senate and the House of Commons. This year we are commemorating the one-hundredth anniversary of the construction of the library. I am very pleased to announce to hon. members, as will be announced by appropriate officials throughout the country today, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has authorized the issuance of a commemorative silver dollar coin which will mark that event. I know all hon. members would want this brought to their attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
Natural Gas Supplies

[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth reports of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, in both official languages-Mr. Loiselle.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table of the House the report of the National Energy Board on Canadian natural gas supplies and requirements.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES AND REQUIREMENTS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the report of the National Energy Board on natural gas supplies which I have just tabled confirms earlier concerns that natural gas supplies will not be adequate in the near term to meet both projected increases in domestic demand and existing export commitments. It is clear from the information presented that there will have to be some curtailment of our export contracts and that growth of demand in Canada will have to be restrained until frontier supplies of gas are available. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the board acknowledges that the events which have transpired since 1970 were not envisaged when the surplus was calculated. New discoveries have not taken place at the rate expected and deliverability characteristics of existing and new reserves have been less favourable than anticipated. There have been other significant changes in the situation including the impairment of production in gas fields in northern British Columbia, the rapid rise on the OPEC oil price causing natural gas to be underpriced in relation to other fuels, and the opening up of new markets in Quebec and for petrochemical and ammonia production. In the Board's opinion all these factors, coupled with the industry's concern about fiscal regimes and pricing policies, have given rise to the present supply situation.

The question is how to deal with this shortfall. It is clear that Canadians should make every effort to restrain new demands for natural gas and to avoid wastage in existing demands. The powers requested by the National Energy Board for the allocation of natural gas supplies may well be required to reinforce the effect of conservation and pricing policies. Prior to a final decision on such action, however, discussions will be held with the affected provinces. The government intends to ensure that reasonable Canadian requirements are met consistent with the wise use of this scarce natural resource, but that other demands are to be discouraged so as to enable our obligations to

July 16, 1975
Natural Gas Supplies
existing United States customers to be met to the greatest extent possible.
A number of policy changes have already been announced to deal with the board's concerns: first, conservation programs; second, phasing to commodity value at home and for export; and third, consultations prior to amendment of northern land regulations.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the board's opinion relating to "inadequate and uncertain netbacks" to the industry, it should be observed that the recent fiscal measures taken by the federal and Alberta governments should further alleviate concerns by the industry in that province at least. In 1972, prior to the dramatic changes in energy prices, industry in Alberta was receiving 6 to 7 cents per thousand cubic feet for gas after taxes, royalties and production costs. Next year, depending upon the particular circumstances, the return to a producer will be in the range of 20 to 50 cents.

With regard to the recommendation for export controls on the first stage derivative chemicals produced from natural gas, I note the National Energy Board's concern over the large number of ammonia plants being proposed for Alberta. The higher export prices for natural gas will make conversion of gas for export as ammonia less attractive, and the government will be holding discussions with the province of Alberta on the rate of development of ammonia plants pending the availability of frontier gas.
United States government officials were advised of the findings of the National Energy Board in advance, and discussions will be held in an effort to control exports in a manner which will be as responsive as possible to United States concerns. Discussions are also being held with the provinces most directly affected. These discussions will be continued and provincial assistance in restraining natural gas demand in Canada is being sought.
I agree with the board's finding that an immediate elimination of gas exports would not provide significant assistance in offsetting or delaying the gas shortage, and in fact could worsen it by discouraging gas exploration and development necessary for future gas supply. At the same time, some phasing down of exports under existing licences will be required. Consideration is being given to the method of conducting such phasing down. Under either section 17(2) of the National Energy Board Act or sections 82(3) and 85, measures can be taken to condition the existing export licences so that exports may be reduced. Every effort, however, will be made to avoid the need for any curtailment of export deliveries over the coming heating season other than those which continue to occur on the Westcoast system.
While I do not agree with the need for a separate and formal planning council or committee to deal with this specific issue, as recommended by the board, detailed discussions with all interested parties will be required and co-operative action is essential if we are to develop reasonable and workable procedures for handling such shortages as remain after every effort has been made to increase natural gas supply. In fact, discussions with the provinces have been initiated. My deputy minister has met with his counterpart in each of Ontario and Alberta, and with

officials of Quebec; he has also conferred with the chairman of the interprovincial advisory council on energy. We expect that the provinces would agree to use such existing vehicles to carry out the necessary discussions.
Agreements will be required which are flexible as to the amount and timing of any cutbacks in exports, which focus not only on exports but equally on reductions of unnecessary or wasteful consumption in Canada, which would avoid the seemingly simple solution of attempting to meet the problem entirely at the expense of the U.S. customers, and which maintain the essential principle that, after reasonable consultation, Canadian authorities must make the decision as to the quantities of gas to be exported.


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement today constitutes a tacit admission of a state of affairs in Canada concerning security of supply of energy which we on this side of the House have been pointing out for some time. We have been predicting that this situation would come about ever since the government embarked upon its disastrous series of energy policy initiatives two years ago. Once again the government has allowed itself to be overtaken by events, with serious implications to our country not only in terms of our ongoing ability to heat our homes and operate our industries but in terms of our continuing ability to meet our financial commitments and obligations internationally.
What effect will the inevitable curtailment of gas exports have on our balance of payments position which is already in a state of substantial deficit? What are the possibilities of retaliation in other areas by the United States when long-term supply contracts are unilaterally abrogated by government decree, which seems certain to occur?
This government should move now with a determined, vigorous sense of urgency to restore and to recreate a climate in Canada conducive to an expanded rather than a diminished level of exploration for natural gas and oil in this country, because it is only by increasing our domestic supply of economically available energy that Canadians can once again feel confident in our ability to live in comfort and at the same time maintain our relative position economically with other countries of the world.
The board's report, on page 85, identifies in stark terms the fundamental reasons why, in the face of a domestic shortage of energy, the industry is going abroad with its capital, its expertise and its hardware to explore. The report states:
The large proportion of the revenue from higher prices accruing to governments from royalties and taxes does not, in the board's opinion, leave producers with sufficient cash for exploring and developing high cost reserves in a way which will maintain the inventory of reserves necessary for continuing maintenance of deliverability.
This agency of the government has now said what we have been saying over and over again, that the policies followed by the government in the last two years would not increase the supply and would, indeed, lead to the situation we have in the country today. Surely the minister and the government will now face up to the fact that it made a disastrous error in judgment when it made non-

deductible royalty payments to provincial governments and when it stubbornly refused equal treatment to domestic investors in high-risk exploration ventures with their foreign counterparts.
Time and time again we on this side of the House have warned of the consequences of the government's lack of response to and concern for the obvious problems facing our once strong and confident resource industry, an industry which now, I regret to say, has reduced its capacity to iheef our needs.
The report says, again, at page 85:
An essential component of a solution to the problem of deliverability would appear to be a known system of pricing and a stable system of royalties and taxation adequate to provide producers with the incentive to carry out vigorous exploration and development programs.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, what the National Energy Board has given out today in this report is a total indictment of the way in which the government has conducted its energy policies in this country over the last two years. The report says what we have been saying, that we must give back to the industry the certainty and incentives it so clearly needs, in order that it can go ahead and produce the supplies we must have if we are to meet our own domestic needs not only now but in the future, as well as our commitments abroad.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) for making available to me a copy of the National Energy Board's report on natural gas supplies. It is a very impressive document and represents a condemnation of the policies this government has been pursuing in recent years. One could sum up the report by simply saying it tells us that Canada, like this government, is running out of gas.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has run out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This report represents a complete reversal of the position taken by the National Energy Board up to and incuding 1974. There has been in this country for the past ten years a cynical manipulation of figures by the oil and gas industry to persuade the government and the people of Canada that we had adequate supplies of oil and gas-which we now find we do not have. What was the sole purpose of the industry's callous manipulation of the facts? It was to persuade the National Energy Board and the government to grant to the industry further permits to export oil and gas resources which were rapidly being depleted in this country.
There was no reason for the government to be misled on this subject. It did not have to depend on facts given by the oil and gas industry. Prominent experts in this country, including men like Professor North of Carleton University, Professor Halliwell of the University of Toronto, and an expert oil consultant Joseph Yanchula of Calgary, and others, have written articles repeatedly over the last eight or ten years pointing out that we were exporting far too large quantities of oil and gas and that the day of reckoning would come. That day of reckoning is now here.
As the report admits, in November, 1970, the National Energy Board recommended that the government approve
Natural Gas Supplies
the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas to the United States. In a unique subsequent report from the National Energy Board we were told there was no problem about having adequate supplies of gas. Even as late as 1974 the National Energy Board report said we still had a small surplus and therefore some export licences could be granted.
I am not laying the blame at the door of the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the present chairman of the National Energy Board as neither of them held the offices they now hold when the large export of gas took place in 1970. But the National Energy Board and the present minister has been all too slow in recognizing that we were fast approaching the situation in which we now find ourselves, namely, that we would not be able to meet the needs of the Canadian people.
The National Energy Board reports suggest two things which the minister reiterated in his statement today. He said, first, that we must curtail our exports. He points out that we ought not to stop exports because there are areas in the United States which are dependent upon Canadian gas. It is true that Canada supplies only 4.5 per cent of the United States consumption of gas, but there are areas which are largely dependent upon supplies of gas from Canada.
I would point out that the minister gives as the reason for not phasing out our exports of gas to the Unites States the fact that an immediate elimination of gas exports would not provide significant assistance in offsetting gas shortages, but would in fact discourage gas exploration for future gas supplies. Is the minister telling us that the oil and gas industry which got us into this situation will go on strike if it is not permitted to export gas to the United States? That is a form of refined blackmail-and not very refined at that. That statement is the most damning indictment ever made in this House of the oil and gas industry in Canada. It represents the best argument I have heard so far for progressively nationalizing the oil and gas industry in this country.
The second suggestion in the minister's statement is that we must reduce domestic consumption. The only specific means that is mentioned is that the government will effect price increases on November 1. I make only one comment, which is that rationing by pocketbook has never brought about conservation. It has not worked in the case of oil. From 1971 to 1975 the price of oil went up from $2.90 a barrel to $6.50 a barrel, but consumption went up by over 12 per cent in that period. The people whose homes are heated by natural gas will not be able to switch to some other fuel even though they must pay a higher price.
Just as I was suspicious of the motives of the oil and gas industry in the past when we were told we had adequate gas, so that the industry could export gas, I hope the government will not be stampeded now in respect of the pessimistic estimates given by the oil industry. The same companies which appeared before the National Energy Board in 1970 and said we had plenty of gas to supply us beyond the turn of the century are now saying we will not be able to meet our export and domestic commitments beyond 1979. The objectives are twofold, the National
7630

July 16, 1975
Natural Gas Supplies
Energy Board agrees. They say we must give them financial incentives, and we must give them lower royalty rates. In others words, having got us into this mess it is now up to the public treasury to pay them to help get us out of the mess.
The second thing I fear is that these forecasts are designed to stampede this government and the country into approving the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Apart from the environmental arguments and the matter of native claims, the economics are also open to question. The best estimate by CPA is that the proven reserves in the Mackenzie delta are 4.8 trillion cubic feet. When I asked the National Energy Board, during the committee hearings, what their estimate was, we were told it was 4.5 trillion cubic feet. This is in respect of a pipeline the economic viability of which depends on having 12 trillion cubic feet to 15 trillion cubic feet. To build a pipeline at a cost of between $6 billion and $8 billion, when we have less than 5 trillion cubic feet of gas, less than one-third of what is required, would be to compound the errors we have committee in the past.
I hope the minister will agree to send this report to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. I hope he will agree, also, that the National Energy Board and the government will not grant a permit for the construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline until the committee of the House has completed its studies and its report for the consideration of the House.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, according to the report delivered to us and the comments of the minister about it, it is quite obvious that it is necessary- or I must do on behalf of my party-to point out that the government, which is unwilling to carry out logical and reasonable economic policies, leads us to ambiguous situations such as that one. Thus the sale and export of a natural resource such as natural gas is authorized, but no attention has been given to the basic principle which merely provides that we should endeavour first to produce to meet our domestic needs. If our production sufficiently exceed our own needs, we should only then consider exporting it.
Mr. Speaker, that principle holds in all ambiguous conditions. Each time the administration of the country is based on external trade, on our balance of trade with others, we err on a basic tenet. And that is why we come with such things. With a government that must prevent and, therefore, forecast all eventualities, all potentialities, such situations would not occur. Just a few days ago, a few weeks at most, I asked in the House, in a motion under S.O. 43, that a real inventory of all Canadian energy potential be made. At that time, I specifically referred to oil.
Mr. Speaker, we are again acting in an unconsidered manner with oil, just as we did with natural gas, since we know that some regions of Canada have no such resources and need some, while other areas or Canadian provinces export what those regions need. Furthermore, when there is every likelihood of a shortage, Mr. Speaker, it is a nonsense. You must call a spade a spade.

Of course I agree with the government that we must put an end to those stupid exports, and that we should start, for domestic trade purposes, organizing trade relationships within Canada, so that regions which do not have such energy resources can obtain them from other regions. The role of the federal government would actually be to foster that kind of interprovincial organization, to urge them to reach some forms of agreements and even agree to a certain extent to a form of free trade for the purposes of the economic and industrial needs of our country. That is a kind of policy which makes sense. If after that we have surpluses and do not know what to do with them, if we know that our oil and natural gas supplies will last for millions of years, then we shall let others benefit from them. That is a plain commonsense policy.
I therefore urge the minister to cut short those exports as soon as possible. We cannot afford such extravagance with a non-renewable product. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the only thing to do is to stop those exports. To do something positive, we should get organized within Canada for the benefit of Canadian consumers, we should let them take advantage-in a reasonable way of course and barring any form of waste-of all the plentiful resources of Canada which should be put to good use. Mr. Speaker, that will require at some time in the future, as I said earlier, a change in the economic policy of Canada; and we shall have to stop managing our resources for the purposes of exports and of our foreign trade. We should first think of getting organized within Canada and then consider possible forms of help to or agreements with other nations.


Mr. Bawden:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question. Can the minister explain just what is the plan for allocating exports-in other words, what Canadians will be cut back-and in view of his estimates, what is to be the cutback to the American users? Will these reductions in supply be prorated on an equal basis between Canadian and American users?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the last question first. My answer, in general terms, is no. We anticipate that the cutbacks-this is indicated in the report of the board-will be in certain uses of natural gas in Canada. The user we are talking about here is the utility and industrial user who has an alternative and can, for example, shift to coal as a heating source as opposed to natural gas. This will have to be a matter of consultation with the provinces affected, particularly with the utilities in those provinces. But it would not occur with regard to the present household user of gas. Of course, it could have an impact on industrial users who have the capacity to shift to other energy sources. As to the actual amounts, the board, of course, will have to calculate them after discussions with the affected provinces on the allocation, and after the estimates for the coming winter.


Peter Colwell Bawden: I would like to hear the minister's response to the other part of my question, which was whether cutbacks would be shared equally by Canadians and Americans. The supplementary question I wanted to pose to him, also, is whether the minister has considered
July 16, 1975

the proposal of the province of Alberta to lease some of that province's long-term supplies in return for a commitment that Arctic gas would be made available to Alberta as part of their reserve inventory when that particular gas is available.
While the minister is on his feet, would he say whether he envisages any new incentives or any new measures to encourage exploration in view of the fact seismic crews, the best indicators of current exploration activities, have been falling off severely in the past few months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I responded to the first part of the hon. member's question by the first part of my answer with respect to absolute equality between Canadian and American users, by saying that probably the higher level of cutback would fall upon the export licences; there probably would not be absolute equality. With regard to the proposal of the minister of energy of Alberta, which was a helpful proposal, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that that can be of assistance in accordance with concerns about long-term reserves, but it will not necessarily add anything in terms of current deliverabili-ty. In terms of absolute quantities of reserves available, this is a helpful suggestion and one well worth examining further, in particular within the context of possible uses of gas for petrochemical purposes. With regard to deliverabil-ity, it will not have a substantial immediate impact.


Peter Colwell Bawden: What will you do to stimulate activity?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to stimulation for exploration, the report, of course, was written before the recent budget and the recent decisions with regard to both oil and gas pricing. As indicated, the return to the producers in Alberta is estimated as between 20 cents and 50 cents a thousand cubic feet, depending on the situation of the particular company. So there is a substantial cash flow going to them. Of course, they will have the benefit of the resource allowance under the budget and the benefit of any changes in royalty that may be occurring. It is fair to say that the reaction that has been coming forth from, for example, CPA-which has not always been one of the admirers of this government's policy-is that there is room for substantial exploration, particularly in the conventional areas of Canada.


James McPhail Gillies: As the minister indicated that the report has been made available to the government of the United States, could he tell us if there has been any reaction from that government in terms of its response?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have received no reaction as yet. I should say that the ambassador was advised and no doubt reported to his government. The report in detail has been made available to the U.S. government, but at the moment I have no reaction.


James McPhail Gillies: What has been the reaction of Mr. Justice Berger to the reception of the report?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not sure that this report affects either Mr. Justice Berger or, indeed, the National Energy Board in its current responsibility with regard to gas pipeline hearings. In both cases we will be looking for them to go ahead and complete their work in
Natural Gas Supplies
the time they consider appropriate. As the National Energy Board makes clear in this report, the question of northern gas reserves is basically left to be decided. We are dealing only with conventional reserves at this point, and the board recognizes that at the hearing which it will be having in due course it will have to determine, for example, the question of supplies available in the north and also the question of conditions under which the pipeline is to be developed.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why he has rejected a planning mechanism. It seems to me that in the face of this rather crucial shortage, some kind of allocation of the use of a scarce resource will be necessary and he will need a program that goes beyond simply looking at plants converting energy into chemicals or something of that kind. I understand from what the minister said that he will be speaking to the government of Alberta about a plant they are proposing.
I would also like to ask him-and I would like a reply on the question of rejection of a planning mechanism- whether he is looking at some of the proposals which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) seems to favour, judging from a statement that appeared in the press today, that Canada is prepared to upgrade some of its raw materials exports and carry them one step further into the smelting and refining process, which of course would consume enormous quantities of energy, gas and oil. Is the minister prepared to look at all those projects as well; in other words, projects outside the purview of his own department?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On the contrary, the National Energy Board is a planning mechanism and we have said we would consider their proposal, after consultation with the provinces, to extend to them allocation powers between various users. What has been rejected is the suggestion which has been made that there should be a tripartite, federal-provincial-industry committee or council to discuss the question. It is transparent that after the extensive and very substantial open federal-provincial meetings on energy questions, greater progress can probably be made by way of the kind of bilateral consultations which we have had rather than by way of enormous round-table, group meetings which, I can fairly say, would have difficulty arriving at a decision.
With regard to the question, as indicated in the board's report and referred to by myself, of examining with Alberta the first stage derivative upgrading in petrochemicals, of course the uses of natural gas or, for that matter, oil involved in those processes is substantially greater than those involved in processing minerals or other raw materials.
What is really involved is, for example, in the case of an ammonia plant, the export of very substantial amounts of natural gas from Canada, but in the slightly upgraded form of ammonia rather than in the very much more upgraded form, to pick another example, of copper ingots or copper wire. In that sense, I think it is obvious to pick first users of natural gas, for example, petrochemical plants. In the case of smelters, this is the kind of industrial use in which we would make every effort to shift away
29576-701/?.

July 16, 1975
Natural Gas Hupp Lies
from using natural gas to using coal or electricity founded on more available sources.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the prospecting and discovering of new sources of natural gas.
The minister is aware that important discoveries have been announced at Melville and King Christian Islands in the Arctic. Can he tell the House whether steps are now being taken for their prospection and development with a view to making those sources available to eastern Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we believe so. As I said to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden), with the last budget and changes in prices, with the establishment of a price increase program over a period of three to five years, we have laid down a stable foundation for the industry, for prospecting and exploration. We trust new sources of natural gas and oil will be discovered in the near future.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, I have just two questions for the minister. It is clear that we must limit demand, and I would ask the minister if he will take steps to prevent gas companies in this country continuing the practice of marketing and making new contracts for gas, as was done in Thunder Bay in the last few weeks where a contract for 200 houses in a co-operative housing unit was signed by the gas companies. Second, will the department put on the active list or update its consideration of a polar gas line or coal gasification, because of the reserves in the north and on the northern islands, as alternatives to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One of the questions we will want to discuss with the governments of the consuming provinces, such as the government of Ontario, will be with respect to the distribution companies' policies in terms of installing additional gas using capacity. Naturally, we will attempt to direct this to the diversion away from natural gas for new industrial users, but this may indeed also be relevant with regard to the kind of residential use to which the hon. member has made reference.
With respect to alternatives, the polar gas study, of course, continues and the government has a not too indirect interest in its outcome. As a 45 per cent shareholder in Panarctic, we understand that the polar gas group is continuing its work, and we would be prepared to consider support for that work, as an investor in Panarctic, to make certain that that option of gas is also available for Canadians. Coal gasification is one of the areas which has received certain investment, as will be apparent from the task force report on energy research and development. This will be one of the items for future consideration, although perhaps not with the same priority as, for example, the extension of reliance on non-fossil fuel sources.


Mr. Speaker:: I see several hon. members seeking the floor. I propose to try to conclude the questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Bal-
dwin), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone).


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will precede my questioning by saying that I strongly favour the bringing down to southern Canada of frontier gas as soon as it is practical and possible, both politically and economically. I am very much in favour of that. But having in mind that the statement of the minister indicated there is a recognition, at long last, of non-dependability of sources of energy and the need for conservation, I want to ask the minister quite bluntly if he is now prepared to discard his present absurd and mythical propositions as to conservation. If not, has he discussed with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) conservation measures such as a proper conservation tax on energy, rather than the somewhat stupid tax involved in the minister's bill today, a tax on machinery and vehicles which use unduly large quantities of energy? Has there been discussion with the provincial ministers with regard to reduced speed limits, in the hope that they will be observed? I see the minister is getting help from the Minister of Finance in this regard.


John Napier Turner: Just get on with your question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Does the minister propose providing some true incentives to produce alternative forms of energy, of which there are a great many in this country which is waiting for some form of leadership and guidance from this government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am really delighted to have the opportunity offered by the hon. gentleman's question, and I will start off by saying that I welcome his conversion to the importance of conservation in Canada. I recall that when we set out the conservation policy, all his colleagues could do was bawl and jeer and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was making wisecracks about underwear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Now they are converted to the importance of conservation, and I welcome that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It is a step forward.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was the one who started it ten years ago.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On the question of speed limits, we approached the provinces in this regard to seek their co-operation. I have to say that the reaction has been negative, but it is my intention to go back to them again for the purpose of persuading them to agree to this. This, of course, rests entirely within the area of provincial jurisdiction but I am glad that we have the support of the hon. gentleman in recommending to provincial governments the reduction of speed limits to 55 miles per hour.
With regard to expenditures on alternative sources, I remind the hon. member, for example, of the program by which we are providing $300 million for the Point LePreau nuclear reactor to enable the province of New Brunswick
July 16, 1975

to reduce its dependence on overseas supplies of oil. We have offered over $300 million to the province of Newfoundland to connect to that province the additional hydroelectric resources on the Lower Churchill. I remind the hon. member of the provisions made by the federal government for coal exploration programs with Saskatchewan; the provisions to be made by the Government of Canada through Petro-Canada for the Syncrude project, which project from time to time has the support of the hon. gentleman opposite.
I would remind him, also, of the provisions which have been made by the federal government, in particular, in approaching the six eastern provincial governments in Canada to suggest that they get together within their jurisdiction to form an eastern Canadian grid so that they can have an effective and economic interchange of energy throughout eastern Canada. We will be continuing that effort. We recognize that certain provincial governments reject the notion of the federal government taking an initiative in this regard. We will, however, keep pressing them to seek conservation through these measures.
Finally, I regret that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) is not here. Significant discussions are now under way between the Government of Canada and the two Bay of Fundy provinces for the purpose of putting on stream Bay of Fundy tidal power.


John Napier Turner: Thank you very much for that question, Jed.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour was right; I apologize for asking the question and wasting the time of the House with the frivolous answer we received.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a short question. Acknowledging the difficulty about cutting off exports to the United States in one stroke, but also realizing that the Americans will have to adjust to our difficulties just as our own consumers will, has the minister any time-frame within which exports of natural gas to the United States will be phased out in the same manner as has already been done with respect to oil exports? Is there such a timeframe? Will the minister be able to announce that today, or will he announce what that phased-out reduction of exports will be?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. gentleman will have noted, the National Energy Board, unlike the situation in the oil report, did not suggest a time-frame for this and I think it will have to be a matter of discussion with the board and between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States. It is entirely possible that in relation at least to some of the users of Canadian gas, they can find alternative sources at an earlier date than in the case of others, so that the reduction in exports may vary from user to user and from one part of the country to the other. But there is not a distinct timeframe. I do not think we will be able to set one out until after we have had full discussion with both the producing side in Canada and the United States.
Natural Gas Supplies


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it
the intention to send the report of the National Energy Board to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works? Can the minister assure the House that no action will be taken with respect to a decision on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline until that committee has had an opportunity to review the matter and report back to the House, and the House has had an opportunity to discuss the whole question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to do that, perhaps even by expanding the present reference that the committee has to discuss the question of northern gas and oil supplies. With regard to the question of whether the committee will be able to complete its studies before any decision is taken on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline application, I cannot of course, be sure of the time-frame that either the board or Mr. Justice Berger will be following in completing their work. I anticipate that the committee could report long, well and full before either of those two bodies has submitted its final report. In that case, I think there would be no problem in the committee having the opportunity of full consideration and giving a balanced judgment before the regulatory decision is submitted to the government.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, the news brought to us by the minister is distressing. I should like to ask him whether there will be any special efforts of policies or plans with respect to nitrogen fertilizer, which is a derivative of natural gas. I ask that question in light of the World Food Conference concern. We need not document the need for food in the world, but in light of the high protein food developed in the initiation of the green revolution, we know that we are now running 3.8 billion tons short in the supply of nitrogen fertilizer. In light of the news brought today, perhaps the minister could comment on any special programs to give this country and the world some protection in respect of the supply and cost of nitrogen fertilizer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, ammonia plants in particular, as the basis for hydrogenous fertilizer, would be one of the questions to be discussed with the province of Alberta within the context of its industrial plans. The consideration that the hon. gentleman has referred to will be, I think, an important one in that particular discussion.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question. I appreciate that response. It seems to me, however, that that can only give guarantee to the Canadian supply situation. If we are to have any regard for the World Food Conference concerns or policy thrusts, there needs to be an international type of concern at this time. Certainly, the whole world fertilizer supply is tremendously short as compared to even three years ago. It is less than a 50 per cent supply related to that time-frame.

July 16, 1975
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,177, 2,582, 2,605, 2,714, 2,715, 2,716, 2,717, 2,754, 2,902 and 2,908.
Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 2,393, 2,402 and 2,529 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of March 15, 1975, what study or studies has the government undertaken or participated in regarding the (a) immediate (b) longterm impact on the environment of the current methods of nuclear waste disposal at (i) the sites of the Pickering nuclear plant and the Bruce Depository (ii) the areas in the region of the sites which might potentially be affected?
2.	What (a) is the exact description (b) is the projected cost (c) are the other participating parties involved in any such studies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Treasury Board for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury-Board):: In so far as Vote 1 is concerned, the answer is: 1. $72,000 excluding the salary of personnel receiving instruction because each participating student carries the full duties of his position while taking part-time instruction.
2. (a) See 1. above; (b) Nil; (c) Nil; (d) $72,000 for instructional services for in-house language training.
July 16, 1975

In so far as Vote 15 is concerned, the answer is: 1. $50,000,000.
2. (a) Not applicable; (b) Nil; (c) Nil; (d) $50,000,000 primarily for salaries of replacements for public servants on continuous language training as a result of a conditional appointment or as part of a designation plan. Some unforeseen requirements may also be charged against this vote, if approved by the Treasury Board.


Mr. Forrestall: Will the government give consideration to (a) tasking the requirement of each department for aerial capability in a straightforward manner (b) make the appropriate budgetary allocations and, if not, for what reason?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Aerial capability in the federal government has been developed as individual departments have determined the need for carrying out their responsibilities. The government implicitly tasks departments in this way and allocates budgetary resources to facilitate implementation of approved departmental plans. Every effort is made to limit government flying activities to those which are necessary to efficiently support achievement of department's objectives with the result, that, the only departments which operate aircraft are: National Defence, Transport, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Energy, Mines and Resources. Wherever practicable, other departments may make use of these resources on a cost-recoverable basis, and where it is more efficient to do so, departments rent or lease aircraft to meet their requirements.


Mr. Francis: Is the environmental assessment of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station the only such assessment ever sought in Canada and, if so, is the government considering the possibility of an environmental assessment of all other existing nuclear facilities in Canada?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: The environmental assessment of the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station is the first assessment carried out under the auspices of the Department's Environmental Assessment Panel. However, environmental assessments have been carried out under the auspices of the province of Ontario for generating stations in that province. Any provincial environmental assessments are additional to the licensing and review process by the Atomic Energy Control Board with respect to health, safety and security matters. The federal government is not considering calling for environmental assessments for all existing nuclear facilities in Canada.


Mr. Francis: 1.	Has the government spent millions of dollars attempting to rehabilitate the salmon population in the St. John's River near the proposed Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Did the Environmental Assessment Panel of the project state that the thermal pollution from the station may harmfully affect the salmon and, if so, will studies be carried out of the effect on the salmon and will such studies be released to the public before construction of the station begins?


Len Marchand: 1. Yes.
2. Yes. The Environmental Assessment Panel stated that: "It is imperative that every effort be made to discover the migration patterns of smolt in the vicinity and that the intake structures be sited and designed to avoid significant damage to smolt runs". The panel recommended that data on the aquatic life in the immediate vicinity be collected by the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission to the specification of the department. The design of the inlet and outlet structures will be based in part on this data and the decisions will be approved by the department. Results of these studies will be released to the public on request.


Mr. Francis: 1.	How much time elapsed between the announcement of an Environmental Assessment of the Point Lepreau Generating Station and the holding of a public meeting?
2.	Is the government convinced that this was enough time for environmentalists and other groups to arrange for a proper assessment of the project before making a presentation to the Environmental Assessment Panel?
3.	How long did the New Brunswick Power Commission take to have its own preliminary environmental assessment report made, which the Environmental Assessment Panel concluded was "deficient in many respects"?


Len Marchand: 1. The environmental impact statement was received by the Environmental Assessment Panel on February 21, 1975; the press release indicating the time of the public meeting was released on March 12, 1975 and the public meeting was held on April 3, 1975.
2.	This was a special case in that an environmental assessment prepared for the New Brunswick government was released in the summer of 1974, therefore there were considerable discussions with the public in advance of the March 12 press release. Consequently, the interested groups were well aware of many aspects of the project before being offered the opportunity to review the preliminary environmental impact statement. The opinion of the public at the April 3 meeting was well documented and well presented.
3.	The New Brunswick Electric Power Commission was issued guidelines in October 1974. The preliminary assessment was submitted on February 21, 1975.


Mr. Francis: Are the effects of radioactive discharges on the immediate ecosystem being continually monitored at all nuclear facilities in Canada and, if so, what are the results of such studies?


Len Marchand: Yes, radioactive discharges are

July 16, 1975
Order Paper Questions
being monitored at all nuclear generating stations in Canada under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Control Board for public health and safety reasons. Ecosystems are monitored in some cases under this program because they may contribute radioactivity to human food chains. The results indicate a few cases of barely detectable increases in the radioactivity in the environment around nuclear power plants; far below levels which would be of any concern. In most cases there is no detectable increase in the background of radioactivity above that created by natural sources of radiation and by fall-out from nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere.


Mr. Francis: Are operators of nuclear power stations in Canada using additives such as biocides to defoul the condensers of the generating stations and, if so, are they getting prior approval from the Department of the Environment before using such additives?


Len Marchand: Yes, additives are being used to defoul the condensers of the generating stations. Approval for the use of biocides is discussed between the federal and provincial Departments of the Environment and action is taken by the appropriate control agency.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Will the $12 million cutback in expenditures on railway relocation by the Department of Transport affect any applications now before the government from municipalities in Atlantic Canada and, if so (a) from which locations (b) to what effect?
2.	Will such cutback impair the ability of the City of Dartmouth to apply for funding to relocate inland the railway tracks along the City's waterfront?


Jean Marchand: 1. No.
2. No.


Mr. Forrestall: What projects in Nova Scotia will be affected by the $5 million reduction in capital expenditures by the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: None.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Jones: 1. What philosophy is followed in certain Public Service jobs so that regional disparity is practiced insofar as wages and salaries are concerned?

2.	What are the full details and breakdown of wages and salaries paid in all Public Service positions across the nation for all classifications?
3.	What are the full details and breakdown of wages and salaries paid in all positions in various Crown agencies?
4.	With reference to Parts 2 and 3, what are the same details for all senior and management positions?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each department, agency, board, commission and Crown corporation, does the government undertake psychological testing of employees or prospective employees and, if so, in each case, what (a) is the purpose of such test (b) categories of employees or prospective employees would be subject to such test?
2.	In each case, who is (a) responsible for administering the test (b) responsible for interpreting its results (c) what are their qualifications?
3.	In each case, would refusal to participate in the test in any way jeopardize the career of an employee or a prospective employee and, if so, in what way?
4.	In each case, is the individual involved given full access to the results of the test and, if not, for what reason?
5.	In each case (a) what procedure is followed for the systematic purging of files on individuals involved when information gained is no longer directly relevant (b) what is the number of files currently maintained on individuals?
Return tabled.



STUDENT MANPOWER CENTRES ACROSS CANADA

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many student manpower centres are there across Canada and where are they located?
2.	How many persons do they have in their employ?
3.	By province, how many applications were filed for jobs at the centres?
4.	By province, how many jobs are available from the centres?
5.	By province, what is the total estimated cost of the project?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motion for the production of papers Nos. 41, 43 and 46?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO PRODUCTION OF HEAVY WATER BY CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTRIC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Hogan:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the contract or the terms of agreement between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Canadian General Electric concerning the production of heavy water by Canadian General Electric.
July 16, 1975
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it has not been the practice to make public commercial contracts entered into between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and private organizations. Such practice would seriously inhibit effective business relationships because of the risk of disclosing confidential commercial information. Under the circumstances I would ask the Hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE BUILDING OF HEAVY WATER PLANT, PORT HAWKESBURY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Hogan:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Canadian General Electric concerning the building and operation of the heavy water plant at Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia since 1965.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it has not been the practice to make public correspondence relating to commercial activities between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and private organizations. Such practice would seriously inhibit effective business relationships because of the risk of disclosing confidential commercial information. Under the circumstances I would ask the Hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO DRUG CLINDAMYCIN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, notices, etc. from the government to doctors, medical journals and medical colleges warning physicians of reports of deaths due to gastrointestinal bleeding caused by the drug clindamycin manufactured by Upjohn Company.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not acceptable to the government in that the government did not issue any correspondence, such as stated in the motion. However, the Upjohn Company consulted with officers of the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare in preparing their letters of August 26, 1974, and January 30, 1975. Furthermore, the department issued a news release to the media on both clindamycin and lincomycin on January 30, 1975. I therefore ask that the motion be withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
Excise Tax Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield, (p. 7416).
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, with great regret. Following the directions which the Chair gave yesterday with regard to the reprinting of this bill, I now have before me the reprinted bill. I find that in addition to the reprinting which was directed by the Chair, something new and foreign has been introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerald William Baldwin: While at first blush it seems minuscule, 1 think it shows, on close examination, the slovenly paper and scissors job done by the government when bringing in this bill. If Your Honour will turn to page 3 of the reprinted bill and page 3 of the original bill, you will find that in subparagraph (4) of the reprinted bill the following appears:
Where a person has purchased gasoline on which the tax imposed by part III has been paid and has recovered the cost of that gasoline, or any part thereof, from a person described in any of paragraphs (1) (a) to (f)-
I emphasize those letters, Mr. Speaker "(l)(a) to (f)". When we come to the original bill we find that the same subparagraph reads:
Where a person has purchased gasoline on which the tax imposed by part III has been paid and has recovered the cost of that gasoline, or any part thereof, from a person described in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (j)-
Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the beginnings of clause 5, section 47, one finds that there are in the original bill- which Your Honour found offensive and repugnant and ordered to be reprinted-subclauses (a) to (f), and that (j) is not apparent at all. I can readily imagine what happened. After a desperate struggle, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) got the bill, took it before cabinet, and I can speculate as to what happened. There were a number of exceptions, including those classes of the community who might be able to seek exemption from payment of the tax, and in the bill which the minister brought to cabinet-he can correct me if I am wrong, as I was not there-there were a number of exceptions from (a) to (j), the different groups which could be exempted from payment of the tax.
I pause to point out that this is not just a simple technical matter. Here we made a tax involving several hundreds of millions of dollars, and we have conditioned upon that tax the right of a number of people to secure, by the proper methods, exemptions of payments of this tax fundamental to the rights of this House in imposing tax measures at the request of the government and exempting certain classes from payment of the tax. That is what is involved in this issue. When we had the original bill before us, we had a bad bill for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was that we had a number of classes which

July 16, 1975
Excise Tax Act
had been defined as being exempt within the limits of (a) to (j). That was the bill which Your Honour found defective.
We now come to the reprinted bill. We find, in the reprinted version of the bill, that proposed section 47(1) under clause 5 contains subparagraphs (a) to (e). On the other hand, the original clause refers to subparagraphs (a) to (f). Is the government so arrogant, so supercilious and so sure of its power that it plans at the committee stage to add another clause to the exemption provision? Does the government intend to add subparagraph (f) to another clause at the committee stage? Is that why we are faced with this abortion of the legislative process?
We have put up with an awful lot from the government. Your Honour made a useful and effective suggestion yesterday, yet today we face the present situation. I will not urge the House to hold up proceedings, but I do suggest that we are entitled to an explanation of the present situation. What does the government intend? Why have its draftsmen been so slovenly and incompetent as to place this kind of measure before the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the circumstances, it is scarcely the responsibility of the government that the bill has been reprinted in this form. The order I made yesterday was for the deletion of subclause (f) of proposed section 47(1) of the Excise Tax Act, that being part of proposed clause 5 of this bill. The order made by the Chair was that subclause (f) should be deleted and that the bill should be reprinted. But that order did not go on to say that wherever subclause (f) which was ordered to be struck out was referred to elsewhere in the bill, that part of the bill should be changed in the reprinting. That was not done by the printers.
I assure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the House that the government did not intervene and exercised no control, at least to my knowledge. I would be astonished to learn that the government had intervened or had any control over the reprinting of the bill. That was entirely within our control and the failure, if any, and shortcoming is that of the administration of the House and not that of the government.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my comments on the point of order arise from the ruling the Chair made yesterday. I submit that the bill still contravenes Standing Order 69. I suggest that there is a way to cure it, but it must be done in the proper way. The same thing must be done to cure the difficulty which my colleague brought forward. Mr. Speaker, you indicated that the House could direct this to be done at the appropriate stage.
There has been a reprint of the bill. A subclause has been deleted but the bill still contravenes the ways and means motion because there is a major omission. It has been indicated that this can be cured. If we were to be in theory, shall we say, consistent, everything would need to go back to square one because here is an imperfect bill. We could say that there cannot be any motions and that debate on it is dead, because that would be logical and consistent.

The Chair decided, and the House accepted that decision, to preserve the proceedings to date. But there must be a proper bill before us. In order to cure the lacuna, I suggest there should be an order of the House to implement precisely what the Chair indicated yesterday should happen. The House should authorize, at the appropriate stage, the reintroduction of a clause to conform with the ways and means motion. That should be done now. That would cure, also, the difficulty which is apparent in the reprinted version of the bill as ordered by the Chair.
My colleagues would support an amendment. The House could authorize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) at the committee stage to bring forward a clause based upon subparagraph (f) of the ways and means motion. The House would give its assent and the authority would be there. Otherwise, without that authority I say that this debate cannot go on and the bill remains out of order.
We are trying to cure two things, and I hope we can be helpful. There is no way someone can say, when we come to the appropriate clause of the bill, "Now we are going to put forward a motion authorizing the government to bring forward an amendment." I say that the bill would be imperfect up to that time and there is no way we can carry on these proceedings. I strongly urge Your Honour to accept my view. The minister can easily make the motion. We will accept it, the House will accept it and we can cure the lacuna which exists at present.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In light of the order that has been made and the indication, when the order was made, that an alteration in respect of this particular clause or in respect of exemptions ought to be made at the appropriate stage, I am not persuaded of the validity of the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that the government does not have the necessary power. The hon. member is suggesting that the House can give its assent and allow the government to introduce committee stage amendments. The fact is that the government-indeed, any hon. member-has power, without the assent of the House, to introduce a committee stage amendment when the bill is at the committee stage. That was anticipated in the order of the House yesterday.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But there was no order of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Specific reference was made to the possibility that the House would make that alteration at the appropriate stage. It may or may not make it, but it is within the power of an hon. member so to move, whether this House gives its assent or not. I cannot accept that it is a requirement that the House must give its assent for the introduction of an amendment at the committee stage. An amendment can be introduced at the committee stage whether or not the House gives its assent.
In light of the order saying that the bill should retain its status while the deletion was made and the bill reprinted, I submit that the bill, by virtue of that order, retains its status before the House and is eligible for debate this day-because the bill, according to the terms of the order, has been reprinted and distributed.
There remains the question raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I think hon. members
July 16, 1975

know that from time to time it can happen that when a bill is reprinted, technical or typographical errors are made, errors which make part of the language of the bill not intelligible. In the reprinted version of the bill is contained subparagraphs (a) to (f), whereas by virtue of the order for reprinting the bill, clause 5, containing the pertinent proposed new section, ought to contain only subclauses (a) to (e). I submit there is ample authority in Standing Order 84 to correct such typographical errors which do not conform to the obvious intent of a bill or document before the House. The error, obviously, is a typographical or a printing error. At least, I so view it. I submit that hon. members, surely, ought to be able to consider the bill as containing subclauses (a) to (e) and not (a) to (f). The hon. member for Peace River raised this point in his argument and indicated that he was not prepared to impede the progress of the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to correct a misapprehension. The House yesterday made no such order. I carefully perused the words. The only order that was made was one in which Your Honour directed that a clause be revoked and that the bill be reprinted. Beyond that there was no House order.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not indicate that I had so ordered. I indicated that when I made the order, it was in contemplation that the House, not the government, had the power and authority to introduce amendments at the appropriate stage of the bill to bring the two in line. I leave it at that. I did not say that I had so ordered; I simply said I contemplated that an amendment would be introduced at the committee stage, or at the appropriate stage, and that is the language I used.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to ask that you stand by the suggestion that it is a technical error, not a typographical one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the events of the last few moments have indicated just how tortured this bill is and has become over a period of time, and how much over the next little while it will be torturing the Canadian public. Perhaps it is prophetic that it should happen at this particular time when the bill has undergone these events; perhaps it is an indication from the Almighty that the government ought to reconsider the bill.
I think it fair to say that the bad fortune this bill is having, and the difficult time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and certain members on the government side are having in swallowing this piece of legislation, was properly described in the Globe and Mail the day after the budget; it described as a cruel budget-and this particular bill is the cruellest of the bills which will flow from that budget. This is just one example of the bumbling and fumbling of the government. Another example took place earlier this afternoon when we witnessed the about-face of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). He admitted that the government has bumped along, lurching
Excise Tax Act
from crisis to crisis, putting off problems and not facing them. When they are forced to face them, they end up reversing themselves. This is what has happened in connection with the whole economic program of this government.
We find, now, the cost of living rising each month with jarring similarity. We find the price of food advancing- some 12 per cent projected by the Food Prices Review Board; this tax adding to the transportation costs of the country, adding to manufacturing costs in this country. We look at British Columbia and see half the work force out on strike, which is a blow to the institution of collective bargaining in this country. We look down east and see unemployment at a rate of 17 per cent in Newfoundland, and yesterday we heard that almost 12 per cent of the work force made up of people under the age of 25 is unemployed in this country.
Into this mess, caused by inflation in part but mostly caused by the government's failure to deal with inflation, is plumped this bill which by itself and according to the most conservative estimates will cause an increase of 1.5 points in the scale of inflation. It is a discriminatory bill, one which has not been defended by any member on the government side either inside or outside the House. The only man I can recall who had any defence for it was a member of the legislature in Ontario, the member for Carleton East, who thought it was a great bill. He is our secret weapon next time we face an election in that area. It is a bill which hits at everyone, regardless of income, in a way which can really hurt them. It is as regressive as a sales tax and it is a miserable, mean, dirty taxation measure.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Walter David Baker: Not one member of that party over there, except the poor Minister of Finance, is prepared to defend it. The ten-cent a gallon tax is taxation which is laid upon the backs of a narrow group of Canadians lays upon them the burden of a national problem. In that sense it is wrong and discriminatory. It lays the burden on the backs of those who must use an automobile to get to work, who cannot get any financial advantage from the use of an automobile and who have no alternative by way of public transportation. That is the problem with respect to the bill.
It is because of the discriminatory and wrong principle which has been established by the bill before us that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), quite properly, moved the amendment which is before the House, an amendment which would cause the bill to be hoisted, taken off the backs of the people for whom it is right now becoming a burden. It would be taken off the backs of the tourist operators who are going to suffer, taken off the backs of those who have no alternative in terms of transportation. This amendment would allow the Canadian people and, more important, the government and the Minister of Finance, to reconsider the position in which they are asking the Canadian people to place themselves. That is the reason for the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason we intend to oppose this iniquitous piece of legislation with all the strength we can muster.

July 16, 1975
Excise Tax Act


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I listened the other evening to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who has just resumed his seat, and I must say that if I did not know his political affiliation I would be sure I was listening to a New Democratic member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this has been an Alice in Wonderland performance. Sometimes in this House I wonder if I am not really in an Alice in Wonderland situation. We have listened to the member for Grenville-Carleton defend the working people of this country. He is from the province of Ontario in which there is a Tory government. We know that there is only one other government that is worse than the Tory government of Ontario, and that is the Liberal government which sits across the aisle. For the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to castigate the Liberals for the kind of mean legislation they are introducing, which will ride heavily on the backs of the people of this country, is to forget that the Ontario Tories are permitting Ontario Hydro to apply for an increase in hydro rates of 25 per cent. It was scaled down from 40 per cent, the original request, but there is no justification for such an increase.
To forget this is to forget that the Ontario government has done nothing about urgent policy in the province of Ontario. They got into a tremendous hassle about the magnetic levitation program. The exhibit from West Germany is sitting there in the Canadian Exhibition grounds, a complete white elephant. The only thing I think of when I think of levitation is that it should be used against the Liberal government and the Ontario Tories to levitate them right out of office. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the project to which I referred was so costly that even West Germany-which handles inflation much more successfully than does either the federal government or the government of Ontario-found that it could not afford to continue that kind of experimental program.
It is to forget, Mr. Speaker, that the province of Ontario takes 19 cents on every gallon of gasoline for the provincial coffers. If they are so concerned about the consumers of Ontario, and indeed of Canada, the government of Ontario should take less in provincial taxation from a gallon of gasoline. It is to forget that the same government of Ontario, with which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is connected by virtue of his party affiliation, shows no concern whatsoever about the workers of Elliot Lake. Year after year they were supposed to let the union and workers know the condition of safety and health in the uranium mines of Elliot Lake. But perhaps we ought not to forget that Steven Roman happened to run for the federal Tory party and that he owned Denison Mines. One wonders whether there was not something more than mere accident in that situation.
It would seem cynical for a federal Tory to stand in this House, especially if he came from the province of Ontario, and castigate the government, but it is no more cynical than the latest budget brought down in Ontario which cuts sales tax from 7 per cent to 5 per cent but only until

after the next provincial election. I suggest that is even more cynical than this budget bill that we are debating. Members on the Conservative benches know that very well. I have always suspected that there is no difference between federal Liberals and Tories and provincial Liberals and Tories. It seems to me that only one class of person benefits from their administration, and that is the person who owns a corporation. Certainly the working class of this country does not benefit.


Mr. Muir:: You don't know what you are talking about.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member says I do not know what I am talking about. He comes from the east coast, and should know.


Robert Muir: I will be telling you in a few minutes, too.


John R. Rodriguez: I hope so, but do it in your own time. The minister has given two reasons for this ten cents per gallon tax on gasoline for personal use. First of all, he said the primary purpose was to bridge the gap between compensation payments and the oil export charge revenues, which has grown rapidly. This excise tax is supposed to yield $350 million in the current fiscal year. One ought to ask the question: Why has there been this disparity? What caused this disparity in the first place? The only answer I can come to after looking over the situation is that there has been mismanagement by governments both past and present, Liberal and Tory.
We must also not forget that there has been collusion on the part of the corporations of this country who supply and distribute oil. It seems to me we cannot ignore the fact that there has been collusion on the part of the large, multinational corporations in this country. Indeed, it should be noted that in a recent Supreme Court case in Nova Scotia, evidence came out which was rather revealing. For example, Imperial Oil legally avoided paying Canadian taxes and socked up the price of its products to the consumer. The operations of Imperial were only a sidelight. Imperial Oil brought a $100 million action against the Nova Scotia Power Corporation, which was dismissed, but the mass of information collected in the case gave a glimpse of how Canadian subsidiaries of U. S. oil corporations-in this case Exxon Corporation of New York-run some of their affairs.
For example, it showed that Imperial used a token Bermuda company to skim oft $35 million of profits on Venezuelan crude oil over a five-year period and then transferred the profits to Canada tax free. It also showed that Exxon Corporation exercises tight control over Imperial Oil's supplies and the decision as to what prices will be paid is made in the Exxon executive offices in New York, not by the executives of Imperial Oil in Canada. It also showed that Imperial was instructed by the Exxon division in June of 1973 to raise crude oil prices, and the instruction suggested that the increases coincide with those set by the oil producing countries. This led Mr. Justice Hart to comment that "the ultimate decisions rested with Exxon Corporation". It appears that by eliminating the gap between the compensation payments and the revenue collected from the export tax, the government will eliminate a visible reason for investigating the questionable practices of the oil companies.
July 16, 1975

It should also be noted in this whole question of the way in which the large, multinational oil companies operate that in the United States, for example, charges have been laid against U.S. oil companies involving the bilking of U.S. consumers of billions of dollars. The massive investigation centres upon the rapid rise in prices during the Arab oil embargo and also on schemes involving fraud. These schemes may have resulted in overcharges to the U.S. consumers of billions of dollars, as I have said.
These are the same companies upon which this government depends for information when making policy respecting the supply and pricing of oil in Canada. As a matter of fact, it was just recently revealed that Imperial-Esso donated something like $235,000 in campaign contributions to political parties in Canada. I can assure the House that the New Democratic Party received not one plug penny, and we would not have taken one plug penny from these companies either. This leaves only two parties in this country that benefitted from the largest of the multinational oil companies, in this particular case Exxon or Imperial Oil.
I wonder why they put up this kind of money, Mr. Speaker. I suggest we have been seeing why. Stories have been coming out of Washington about why they pay money to political parties in places like South Korea and Chile. The reason is that they want favours, they want protection and this is part of their lobbying technique to obtain benefits for the shareholders of these corporations.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I always enjoy hearing the economic theories of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), but I think we are supposed to be debating the government's proposal to put an excise tax on gasoline. I wonder whether the hon. member would explain the relevance of his comments to the proposal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to increase the excise tax on gasoline.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that a Tory or a Liberal would ask that question. It is fairly obvious that one cannot go on sticking one's head in the sand; one has to look at the situation as it is. My hon. friend must realize that when you start passing laws in this country that fall very heavily on the working class, you seek the motivation behind those laws. The reason is fairly obvious and I shall come to it in a minute.
There is no reason for the minister to introduce this kind of regressive legislation that will only fall very heavily upon one class of people. I am pointing out that in fact the minister is taxing the working class people of Canada through a decision based on trust vis-a-vis the multinational oil companies, which I am trying to show have in the past bilked, and probably still are bilking, the Canadian people. I am pointing out that we cannot continue to rip off the Canadian people. These are companies upon whom we must rely for our future oil reserves and to whom we look for solutions in becoming self-sufficient in petroleum. It is like asking the underworld to provide us with community protection in place of the police.
This is not a progressive tax at all. It is very regressive because it hits very hard a certain segment of the population. The minister comes from a nice urban riding somewhere in Ottawa, not from Nickel Belt, a riding that is
Excise Tax Act
about 170 miles across, with very small communities. The people there travel 40 or 50 miles to work. In my area most people work at Falconbridge or at International Nickel. We cannot, of course, take the smelters to where they live, so they have to travel to work in their cars every day. Some of them travel 120 miles a day.
The reason they cannot move into the city to be closer to their work is that they cannot afford the cost of living in the city. A piece of serviced land 55 feet wide by 120 feet deep in the city of Sudbury today sells from $15,000 up to $60,000, depending where in the city it is located. The cheapest you can buy such a piece of land is $15,000, and there is no way the average worker can pay $15,000 for the land then build a $20,000 house on it. So in fact they are priced out of city living. These people move to smaller communities outside the cities where land is cheaper.
The minister now comes along and slaps these people down with this ten cent per gallon tax. Even if they form pools, and they do, they cannot claim the fuel expense including this excise tax. They must use their cars or vehicles to get to and from their work, in much the same way as a doctor uses his car in the pursuit of his profession. There is no difference in the use of the vehicle, but the doctor is able to write off this tax of ten cents a gallon whereas the worker cannot.
I have received many letters from my constituents about this matter. Perhaps the minister is not concerned about this, but he ought to be. Maybe he listens to all those flunkies who sit in his department giving him advice, but let me remind you that those flunkies make $50,000 to $60,000 a year and can afford to pay this increase. The working people in this country have their members of parliament here to tell the minister how this tax will affect them, but the minister does not listen to us. He has brought forward this bill containing the ten-cent per gallon regressive tax on the working class in this country.
This tax has previously been described in the House as a cruel tax, and I suggest it is a very cruel tax. The people who work in northern Ontario in my riding, at INCO, for example, earn $8,600 a year on average. They have to heat their homes longer in the winter, from about mid-October to May. They have longer distances to drive. It is no wonder they are not prepared to accept the pittance offered by the companies for whom they work. No wonder right now in northern Ontario the construction industry is to be tied up, because in fact this kind of increase forces the workers to take a very aggressive position in order to survive.
This is the same minister who has been travelling around the country talking about wage controls. He has an awful lot of gall to do such a thing. The working class pays and pays and pays, and that class will pay again in respect of the unemployment insurance bill this government intends to bring forward. It is the working class who will have to pay for those who do not work. That is a very cruel way of equalizing taxation in this country. It is not progressive, it is extremely regressive. The second reason the minister gave in this budget for this ten-cent excise tax is to be found at page 2 of his speech where he states:

July 16, 1975
Excise Tax Act
The increased cost of gasoline resulting from these measures should encourage motorists to make their driving habits more efficient in terms of saving gasoline. This should not, however, be left totally to the price mechanism. Accordingly, the appropriate departments of government and the Office of Energy Conservation have already been meeting with the motor vehicle manufacturers of Canada and their association. Discussions are proceeding on alternative ways to improve the over-all fuel economy of automobiles sold in Canada, with particular reference to changes in design and the establishment of performance standards. Both improved driving practices and better operating characteristics can make significant contributions to needed fuel conservation. The increased cost of gasoline will also encourage the use of public transportation, thereby helping to relieve the growing congestion in our cities.
The minister refers to our cities, but what about the people in our rural communities who do not have the opportunity to use a public transportation system such as we have in Ottawa or in Toronto? We do not all live in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal; we cannot all step on the subway, take two transfers and get to work. What is the minister talking about in this regard? Does he make any provision for those who live in areas like the Nickel Belt in northern Ontario and other parts of the country to have some sort of public transportation system that is reasonably efficient? No, he is not going to do that. He is talking about the people in the cities, but there are a lot of people who do not live in cities. By improving the facilities in the cities you encourage more people to come into the city, thereby multiplying the problem. That is a phony reason.
The minister well knows that price increases do not necessarily result in conservation, and the record of the petroleum companies would indicate that they do not. If that were true, people would not eat as much when the price of food increases. That certainly is not the case. The price of a barrel of oil was $2.90 in 1971 and is $6.50 at the present time, yet in 1971 the refiners produced 51,581,854 barrels and in 1975 they will produce 68,222,687 barrels. So even though the price has increased drastically, consumption obviously has not been affected.
It seems, in fact, that only the rich can afford to drive their cars because they can afford the extra ten-cent tax. I suggest the conservation line of reasoning is nothing more than a poor excuse. Has the government devised any efficient public transportation system for small communities such as those in my riding? Will the government provide the funds so these small communities can provide public transit? The minister has not touched upon that subject at all. It seems to me he has put the cart before the horse. He should first provide the funds so the municipalities can put in rapid transit. Once you have rapid, economic transportation, then you can adopt conservation measures which are realistic and do not hit the small communities hardest.
When we look around us we see that over the years this country has been organized and built around the use of the automobile. We have only to look at the structure of our cities to see how this has happened. We need only to look to where the shopping centres are built. They are all built on the outskirts, with huge parking lots. This tends to encourage the use of the automobile. The drive-in theatre has become part of our community life. We now have drive-in restaurants, drive-in banks and even drive-in churches. So in fact the use of the automobile has become a part of Canadian life.

It seems to me we have allowed the automobile industry to determine the consumption patterns in this country. We have allowed that industry to set our way of living and the health of people on the North American continent. The minister now, with one fell swoop, puts the burden on people who must use the automobile, not as a luxury item but as a means of getting to and from work. I suspect most of the driving done by motorists today is not done for recreational purposes but mainly as a matter of convenience in doing business or travelling to and from work.
It seems that we have also encouraged people to seek whatever enjoyment they may find in the community by the use of the automobile. Many people use their cars to go to and from their cottages. The trailer industry has become very popular in the last few years. Ours is a mobile society and people do move around. Workers cannot afford airline fares and they do not fly around the country on their holidays. These people drive their cars, with a little tent trailer hitched on the back. This minister, with his high tax, has hit at the recreation of the working class people of this country. Certainly the rich will not be affected.
It was interesting to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), on the program "Question Period" the other day, say that he drives a government car for business but that as a family man he uses a station wagon because it is the smallest car with which he can get by because of the size of his family. He earns a fair wage of about $60,000 a year. A station wagon probably gets 15 miles to a gallon of gasoline. What is the poor man with the same sized family supposed to use? Can he get by on anything less than a station wagon? The minister says that he can get by on a station wagon, and in effect he is saying he can afford it. What does he think the working class people of Nickel Belt and similar places are to use? Are they to use Volk-swagens or even bicycles?
Have we forgotten the election of 1974 and the Liberal promises? If hon. members do not remember those promises, perhaps I should read them. On June 17, 1974, in Toronto, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced a $270 million program to aid public transit: a Liberal government would pay 100 per cent of the cost of Canadian-made commuter vehicles and 50 per cent of the cost of platforms and stations. The government would also pay 25 per cent of the cost of Canadian-manufactured vehicles for public transit within cities. Encouragement and assistance would be given to smaller municipalities in the creation of new transit systems. Canadian industry would be encouraged to develop passenger vehicles, and experimentation with new transit systems would be assisted by federal financing of demonstration projects.
On June 18, 1974, the Prime Minister announced in Cornwall, Ontario, that a Liberal government would take responsibility for rail passenger service out of the hands of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways and entrust the task to a new Crown corporation. The corporation would run high-speed rail services in heavily populated areas such as the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, introduce luxurious trans-continental excursion trains and establish a super bus service between medium-sized cities. The Liberals also promised to set up a national
July 16, 1975

urban transportation development corporation to promote improvements and develop policy on urban transportation.
Mr. Speaker, that was during an election campaign. It is all right to trot out all those promises before the Canadian public. It is all right to string them along. It is no wonder the people of this country are becoming jaded in respect of their view of the politicians of this country of all stripes. It is no wonder they say that when the politicians are on the election platform they say things simply to get the vote of the people, but that once they are elected they forget what they have said. There is a common saying in political circles that if there is distasteful legislation to be brought in, it should be brought in long before the next election because the memory of people is short. Is that the way the people of this country should be treated? If so, surely we cannot have very high regard for them. Do we think they are merely pawns which we can move around on a chessboard in order to obtain the final stroke of power? Is that what we think of the Canadian public?
The people in my community of Nickel Belt are being hit very hard. They are the same people who, when they go on strike for better wages, are blamed for the misery suffered by the people in the rest of the country or they are blamed for inflation. We create inflation and then blame it on the workers. When the workers fight for a better wage, then we talk about wage controls. That is certainly a very cynical attitude. If the minister is really concerned about conservation, I ask him where are the studies on conservation to show how much would be saved by the imposition of this ten-cent tax?
I suspect there must be some bureaucrats in the Department of Finance who suggested very strongly to the minister that he ought not to go for this ten-cent excise tax because of the effect it would have on inflation. I do not think the minister realizes fully the effect this regressive tax will have on the working people of this country. The minister should pay more attention to what the people of Canada are telling him in respect of the problems they experience. Surely he should at least pay attention to one of the agencies of the government such as Statistics Canada, which in its June report stated:
The consumer price index for Canada .. . advanced 1.5 per cent to 184.0 in June from 181.3 in May, with higher food prices, especially for meat, accounting for over three-fifths of this increase which was the largest since May 1974. The index for all items excluding food climbed 0.8 per cent in the latest month, maintaining about the same rate of change experienced during the last six months. Between June 1974 and June 1975, the total CPI advanced 10.4 per cent.
It is to be noted that the gasoline excise increase of ten cents per gallon imposed in the latter part of June is not reflected in this CPI. Preliminary indications are that most retail outlets had raised their gasoline prices by the end of the month. The impact of this tax alone would increase next month's total CPI by nearly one-half of one per cent.
The minister does not even look at the problems that are projected by people who are paid by the taxpayers of this country to look at the facts and figures and make suggestions. Surely information should be sought from these sources. If the minister does not listen to the people of Canada, he should listen to the highly-paid help whose opinions are available to him. He has more highly-paid help than the people of Canada have, and surely he should listen to them once in a while.
Excise Tax Act
Can we imagine what will happen when the $1.50 per barrel increase for petroleum goes into effect and when, on top of that, we have the increased UIC contributions? It is projected that the cost of living will be up 2 per cent. We must not forget that when unions sign contracts they are usually for three-years. On Friday, the Steelworkers of America in my riding will be voting on a three-year contract. The base rate will be $5.45 an hour, and in 1978, three years from now, it will be $7 an hour. When the government takes steps like this it wipes out whatever gains the workers make in respect of keeping up with rising inflation.
It seems to me the minister is increasing the process which we have right across this country at the moment where workers and employers sit across the table from each other in confrontation. This type of thing makes the collective bargaining process meaningless. As a matter of fact, in the past little while many work days have been lost due to this kind of confrontation. The government has done nothing to reduce the danger of this kind of confrontation.
We might look at the position of the government in respect of the UIC. When the new UIC act was brought in in 1971, the government considered that an unemployment rate of 4 per cent would represent full employment and said that it would pick up any deficit in the UIC fund beyond 4 per cent. We know what has happened since then. The government found itself having to pick up large deficits which amounted to $500 million in one year alone. It seems to me that what we will have because of this budget and the bills which will flow from it is a recalculation of what the government considers to be full employment. Now, in the present bill, it will be 5.6 per cent, and by the end of the year I suspect it will be 6 per cent.
Where will it end? Will those who work always have to carry the fall-out of bad government legislation? Will they always have to pay and pay? As Ernest Hemingway said in his book "The Sun also Rises", does it always have to be the workers who have to pay and pay and pay? That is the kind of action and the kind of result government legislation has on working class people. The government hopes to collect $500 million under the new arrangements for collecting unemployment insurance contributions. It is easy to see who will pay. As I said, it is the working class that pays. But about the problems of the working class? What about the serious problem of housing which they cannot afford?
I have said in the House that we seem to be sitting on our priorities around here. We have a serious housing problem. People cannot afford interest rates on mortgages. A person who pays $3,600 a year in mortgage payments finds, when he gets his end of the year statement, that he only paid $200 on the principal and all the rest was interest. I do not think the government fully realize the seriousness of the situation in this country. There is a big article about this in Time magazine, entitled, "Is Capitalism Dead?" At the end one finds out that it is not dead. If the government is serious about the survival of the capitalist and the free enterprise system they should realize they are doing more to destroy that concept which they hold so dear than to maintain it. It seems to me that this

July 16, 1975
Excise Tax Act
government is the best weapon the NDP has at the moment.
We are prepared to put $200 million into housing. When this fellow in Montreal gets through with us on the Olympic project, the taxpayers of this country will pick up a deficit of at least $340 million. Where are our priorities? Where is the leadership which should be shown by the federal state? It is sadly lacking. People in the cities cannot afford to own a home and they are being forced to move to outlying communities, as I said before. Once they move to places they can afford, lo and behold, they get nailed by this excise tax. Just what is the rationale behind this action?
Perhaps the government is consistent in the way it treats the working class and the rich people, the wealthy, the owners. Perhaps all those people are treated in the same way. Unfortunately, we find that that is not so. For example, we find that the wealthy do very well in our free enterprise system. In the November budget some Canadians received a maximum rebate of $750, which is now reduced to $500. The only comparison I can think of which would have the same effect is that of a flea climbing up the leg of an elephant with intent to rape. Imagine that! There are 6,000 people who are hurting as a result of that tax bite. What else does the government do? At page 21 of the budget I find the following statement:
I am there proposing to introduce an investment tax credit as a temporary extra incentive for investment in a wide range of new productive facilities. The credit will be 5 per cent of a taxpayer's investment in new buildings, machinery and equipment which are for use in Canada primarily in a manufacturing or processing business, production of petroleum or minerals, logging, farming or fishing. The cost of new, unused machinery and equipment acquired after tonight and before July, 1977, will be eligible.
INCO has done it again, INCO and the oil companies. On budget night the government again handed them millions of dollars of taxpayers' money so they could continue the rip off, sell out and ship out raw materials from this country. Then the government turns around and says to the taxpayers, "You, the working taxpayers of this country, must support these poor companies because they keep you employed". That is the biggest line of horse manure I have heard for a long time.


An hon. Member:: Listen to yourself.


John R. Rodriguez: With regard to the whole question of taxation, perhaps we should ask who, from among the Canadian population, earns how much, or how is income distributed in Canada? You must remember the years and years of government tinkering with the Income Tax Act. When we look at the income figures in this country we find that the bottom 40 per cent of Canadians have consistently shared around 16 per cent of the total income. The average share of the bottom 40 per cent for the last five years in the 1960s was 15.7 per cent, and for the top 20 per cent it was 42 per cent. In the early 1970s the share of the bottom 40 per cent declined only slightly, and that of the top 20 per cent increased. Remember, this kind of redistribution has not changed-the rich stay rich, and even get richer, and the poor get poorer.

After years and years of tinkering around with the income tax system, the income tax policy should have as its basic and fundamental principle a distribution of wealth in this country which would ensure that we have equity and that those who produce wealth in Canada share equitably the fruits of their labour. We do not find that in the government's budget which was brought down the other day. As I have said, my constituents in Nickel Belt have complained bitterly about it.
In conclusion, I would like to read a letter which was sent to the Minister of Finance by one of my constituents, Mr. Les Chayka of Coniston, Ontario, which is in my riding. He wrote:
I would like to offer a few words on your "screw the people" budget as well as my condolence on your possible departure from politics. That is what is being said after the hoax perpetrated by you and your advisers. I have no doubt at all you will retire to contemplate what went wrong. Now my views on your "do nothing budget".
It's a strange type of restraint you and your gang are practising. The federal bureaucracy will expand by about 6,000 jobs while there will possibly be 15,000 fewer jobs in Ontario. Well done; after all, there is a chance those 6,000 may vote Liberal, but even they must drive to work so it is a risky proposition to count on them.
I hate to mention this, but in this area most drive to the mines and smelters up to 100 miles a day. Those that do drive any distance are certainly grateful to pay the 15 cents a gallon more for gas. After all, it is an economy move as you claim and it will help to increase revenue to assure Mr. Trudeau more funds to travel and explain why the increase took place. Added to this we must not forget the 45 per cent increase in heating gas for heating the home, but then we should be thankful our cold weather in northern Ontario lasts only seven months and not the full year.
I should not burden you with stories of hardship facing pensioners, those on fixed income and widows, etc. They may have a problem having ends meet, but then they can stay warm inside by drinking that cheap wine; after all, they will save a whopping 6'/z cents a bottle. Will miracles never cease? I see no reason to take a negative attitude if more of them will be forced to go on the welfare rolls.
As to the rumour there will be more unemployment, it is not true; it is only people out of work who complain and start these rumours.
By the way, I'm sure Bob Nixon is happy that you assured Bill Davis of his re-election. After all, why should Nixon be burdened with the problems of the federal government created for the province?
Some might even think that you and P.E.T. have gone too far this time by calling this joke a budget. Those that feel the pinch and are hungry can call on their glorious leader, P.E.T., and he most certainly will send one of his $80,000 cars and invite them for a snack at the pool-side. After all, we pay the shot for his $15,000 to $30,000 grocery bill, but then if he plans on following the now famous Turner austerity program he might have to eat bologna and infected hamburg like the rest of us.
Do you know, some people have gone so far as to call for mental check-ups for the cabinet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that he has gone two minutes beyond his time. I tried to allow him to complete reading the letter, but it seems to be a very long one. Unless there is unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Let him finish the letter.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know better; it is not arrogance, as the papers claim, or stupidity as others of the media say; it is good old Liberal politics with all the gibberish that the Liberals have a natural gift for. Why, for example, the artificial gunk on medicare is just misunderstood by the public.
July 16, 1975

If any of us survive the next three years we'll be happy to put the rest of the government into retirement so they too can reap the benefits like the rest of us. I can't take much more of the Liberal good news; you see, I'm a pensioner and am completely overjoyed. All things considered, have a good day.
Critically yours,
Les Chayka


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the remarks made by my hon. friend over there for the constituency of sanctimony.


John R. Rodriguez: Nickel Belt.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I appreciate the fact that when he speaks, it is from the Olympus, but I want to point out that spending a good portion of his time with respect to this legislation in railing against the official opposition, as he did before the last election, is probably one of the reasons I am sitting here today. I think he would do more good if he directed his attention to the government and its failings: the people of Canada expect that of him.
I do not think the hon. member should take credit for being the spokesman of the working people of this country, and I am proud of the position of each member of my party. I think I detect more compassion for the average citizen from the members of my party than from any of the members of the NDP.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: How sanctimonious.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We should deal with the provisions of this bill and its failings. I think it is incumbent upon us to use our time for constructive criticism. An opportunity has been given to members of the House of Commons to bring forward the points of view they have received from their constituents with respect to this bill. I am sorry the minister is not here today, but I can tell the government that I am receiving representations from my constituents who find this to be a rather unsatisfactory bill, to say the least, and an unsatisfactory tax. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is to be commended for proposing his amendment. The overwhelming majority of people in Canada are in support of the concept of giving, not just a six months' hoist but a permanent hoist as far as the tax on gasoline is concerned.
In the debate being conducted on the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition it is important to consider the background of this bill and some of the considerations leading up to the bringing forward of the legislation. The legislation arises by virtue of the second budget brought forward in this session by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). The budget introduced by the Minister of Finance on November 18, 1974, simply did not meet the two outstanding economic problems facing Canada today, namely, the extremely high unemployment rate, combined with an ongoing and apparently accelerating inflation rate. Listening to the statements made by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with respect to bringing into effect a budget in this session, there seemed to unfold a scenario of a gradual dawning on the government that the measures outlined in the
Excise Tax Act
first budget were simply not coping with the two-pronged economic problem of our country today.
It was almost pathetic to observe and hear the Prime Minister come to the conclusion that inflation was the number one problem in our country, because it appeared to me that the Prime Minister was possibly the last person in Canada who finally came to that conclusion. Whether this belated enlightenment was due to the fact that the Prime Minister does not do the shopping in his family, or because of the fact that, being associated with the Liberal government for the period of time he has, he is an adherent of one of the basic credos of that party-namely, money is no concern-I do not know.
As far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, we had hoped for better things. I said in the budget debate on his first budget this session that I had garnered the impression and opinion that he was attempting to introduce restraint amongst his cabinet colleagues, and that it was to be hoped he would continue with the apparent vigour he brings to the House, in a physical sense, during deliberations with his cabinet colleagues in this particular area. I had hoped that he would take seriously the fight with respect to inflation.
The Minister of Finance is a vigorous man. He bounds in and out of this chamber and exudes this particular facet of his personality. One can surmise that his physical vigour has been brought about by the almost continuous economic sit-ups he has been carrying out with respect to his attempts to obtain consensus on voluntary restraint by all segments of the private sector. His goal of good health has no doubt been assisted by his dodging and weaving since last November of questioners and critics pointing out to him the fact that his budget of November, 1974, in which he had so much confidence, was simply not accomplishing the results he had desired. What is, however, of most immediate interest to the minister's physical fitness adviser is that by the budget brought down on June 23 the minister is apparently dedicated to the unfortunate economic policy-but acceptable physical culture program- of running on the spot.
The minister brought down his most recent budget with a lack of enthusiasm which was noticed by the press as well as by everyone in this House. Notwithstanding the persistent and uniform representations, demands and exhortations by those in our country who follow and are interested in the economic welfare of Canada, together with the pleas of the average citizen across our country to take dramatic and strong steps to meet the economic problems facing us today, the minister has brought forward a budget and legislation such as Bill C-66 which do nothing to meet our problem-and, in fact, on analysis can only have the effect of accentuating the serious problems which we face.
One realizes the difficulties faced by the minister in facing up, at this late date, to the extreme complexities of the economic issues of the day created through inflation and a severe business recession. The minister's lack of enthusiasm with respect to the second budget was evident some time before it was brought down. It was clear that the minister either did not have any concise and practical ideas with respect to dealing with the problems or, to say the very least, he was not obtaining the co-operation a

July 16, 1975
Excise Tax Act
finance minister should expect in difficult times from his cabinet colleagues. The Minister of Finance had to face the dilemma of inflation combined with unemployment and recession, but he also had to face another dilemma, which was the creation of his own party, that of limiting the alternatives he had with respect to dealing with these pressing economic factors.
Certainly, much time was wasted on the discussion concerning voluntary restraint by business and labour. The government has tied its own hands with respect to giving credence to restraint, not only by its abominable record in the area of its own spending but also by the fact that as a political decision it undermined any concept of voluntary restraint by the private sector in the last year. The government, therefore, during the discussions on consensus on voluntary restraint could not even use the method relied upon by the government of the United Kingdom, that of suggesting voluntary restraint by the private sector on the basis that if this restraint was not exercised legislation was ready in the background to be implemented. The government simply had no position from which to bargain and the reception it received in its consensus discussions reflected this factor very strongly.
The bill before us proposes a special excise tax of ten cents a gallon on gasoline for personal use, ostensibly to encourage conservation in the use of this sparse resource. In fact, the purpose of the tax is to reimburse the federal government with respect to its one-price oil equalization program. This tax is strictly a revenue-raiser for the federal government. Its purpose is to pay for a mounting deficit of the one-price equalization program caused by the fact that we are now importing into eastern Canada more oil, at higher prices, than we are able to sell to the United States.
It has been said that this tax falls mainly on the working public which is now being asked to subsidize energy products east of the Ottawa Valley. If we are to have a single price for oil for all Canadians, I join with other members of my party in pleading with the government that the subsidization of such a policy must be a general charge against the national treasury and not against the average citizen.
This tax will not be shared with either the producing provinces or industry. This is another misconception some people have with respect to the tax, that some of this money is going to exploration and development of new resources. This is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Recent reports from the National Energy Board have indicated that proven oil reserves presently identified are sufficient to supply the Canadian domestic requirements for only about 14 years. Under these circumstances, one would expect the budget proposals to contain major incentives to the private sector to embark upon extensive exploration programs for new oil deposits. Such incentives are missing.
This particular tax was announced only a few days before the figures were released by Statistics Canada of the consumer price index for June, 1975. The consumer price index rose 1.5 per cent between May and June, the largest month-to-month increase since the April to May

change of 1974. The June consumer price index increase of 1.5 per cent represents the largest change in this period in at least 25 years. During the first six months of 1975, consumer prices have increased at an annual rate of 9.3 per cent. The quarterly annual rate of the index for the second quarter of 1975 is 11.4 per cent. If this month's rate of change were maintained over the next 12 months, prices would be measured 18 per cent higher at the end of the period. Over the previous 12 months the consumer price index has increased 10.4 per cent.
The disconcerting factor that one has to take into consideration with a bill such as the one before us is that further substantial upward movements in the consumer price index may be expected over this summer, directly due to this government's actions. Statistics Canada has calculated that the ten-cent per gallon increase in the excise tax on gasoline will add about .5 per cent to the total consumer price index next month. I am sure we can look forward to another substantial increase in the consumer price index for the month of July. What is to happen in the months ahead? Additional residual effects of this tax increase may be expected in future months. The expected increases of 23 per cent of the domestic price of petroleum and of 52 per cent for natural gas will also provoke short and medium-term price pressure throughout the fall and winter. What can we expect from this government with respect to the fight against inflation?
Another criticism that I hear from my constituents with respect to the special excise tax is that it is levied against the refiners and importers of gasoline and the commencement date of the tax was set at June 24, 1975. It would be reasonable to expect that gasoline in the hands of wholesalers and retailers on which the special excise tax had not been levied would be available to the consumers of Canada at the pre-tax price. In many instances across the nation, this was not the case and the consumer was immediately faced with an increased price per gallon at the pump. It was unfortunate that this situation could not have been avoided. Consideration by this government of an effective date for commencement of the special tax on July 1,1975, might have avoided the problem. The average consumer was being ripped off for the additional price the day after the budget.
Another problem associated with the special excise tax on gasoline is the paperwork required to make refund claims by those who are exempted from the tax. The volume of such claims will be extensive and will likely result in a need to increase staff complements to process the claims. This would be contrary to the proposals in the budget to restrict the growth of the public service. Also, what of the provision of the exceptions to the imposition of this tax set forth in clause 5 of the bill? I understand that a point of order was raised with respect to the failure of the bill to make specific reference to municipalities as being exempt entities with respect to the imposition of this tax, notwithstanding the fact that municipalities were specifically included in the budget resolutions. If there ever was a place where this bill should clearly state an exempt category, it is in the case of municipalities, because if municipalities are not included, by operation of law, in the exempt class a very substantial increased cost will be passed on to the municipal taxpayer.
July 16, 1975

We hope that the government will co-operate with the official opposition in its attempt to improve the draftsmanship of this legislation. Since the introduction of the bill it has become more and more evident that the imposition of this additional tax and the provision for rebates to exempt categories will become an administrative nightmare for the government. It has been reported now that refunds of the ten-cent a gallon excise tax on gasoline used for business by persons and corporations will be treated as taxable income under a planned change to the Income Tax Act. That is the speculation of the press.
According to a report in yesterday's Toronto Globe an Mail by Jeff Carruthers, this change is expected to be announced formally during the budget debate this week and is designed specifically to prevent a possible tax dodge had the refund been treated as originally planned, that is, as merely a non-taxable rebate of the federal tax. Yesterday I proposed a motion under Standing Order 43 and called on the Minister of Finance to make his intention clear with respect to this particular aspect of the matter. The minister has not done that, but I think it is incumbent upon him to make a statement to the House to indicate whether this will be a taxable payment for people who have received refunds or whether it will not be taxable. In my view, this affects the advisability of proceeding with and passing this bill. I referred to the article by Jeff Carruthers, and I should like to quote from it. Mr. Carruthers stated:
Since the excise tax collections and rebates are being handled separately by the excise section of the Department of National Revenue, income tax experts had raised the spectre of taxpayers claiming the excise tax refund and then also claiming the excise tax as a business expense for income tax purposes.
If the refund was not taxed, taxpayers might be able to get away with claiming the excise tax twice.
Such double-claiming would have been difficult, if not impossible, to spot on individual tax returns without an audit, since gasoline expenses are normally lumped in with automobile expenses, Department of National Revenue officials admitted.
With the change in the Income Tax Act making the gasoline excise tax refund taxable, companies and individuals will be forced to claim the excise tax expenses on their income tax to offset the taxable refund.
The government has apparently decided to burden the small businessman with another difficulty with respect to the operation of his business. In addition to the requirement that he make application for rebate, he is also now to be faced with the prospect of having to include the rebate on his income tax return and claim it as an expense. Small businessmen are fed up to the teeth with the additional paperwork, returns and records now required by the federal government. Owing to this kind of helter-skelter approach to taxation and the plethora of returns required by various government agencies, the small businessman finds himself in the position of almost requiring an accountant on staff to handle these matters. This is another example of the government's absolute disdain for the practical problems faced by the small businessman in our country.
The Minister of Finance should come forward during this debate and state whether or not it is the intention of the government to treat the rebates on excise tax as
Excise Tax Act
income, as indicated in the news report to which I referred. The minister will do this House a disservice if he fails to come forward and indicate the attitude of the government on whether excise tax rebates are to be taxable income. I suggest that the government's intentions in this field will involve an additional dimension for consideration. We need to consider the advisability of refunds paid in connection with the ten-cent a gallon excise tax being treated as taxable income. I am sure that members on the government side are most concerned about this tax and are receiving the same sort of adverse representations in connection with it that we in the official opposition have received.
Commenting on the unfolding drama and administrative nightmare associated with this particular bill, the Globe and Mail said yesterday:
The Department of National Revenue excise tax division is turning to the computer to try to prevent companies, agencies or individuals from illegally obtaining the planned federal refunds for the ten-cent a gallon excise tax on gasoline used for business purposes.
But departmental officials admit that even with the computer, special audits and more tax men, some of the refunds are going to slip into the wrong hands undetected.
The computer is already being programmed, in anticipation of refund applications being received starting next month, to use corporate income tax registration numbers or, in the case of individuals such as salesmen and farmers, social insurance numbers to cross-check all refund applicants to determine who is actually eligible for a refund on gasoline used for business.
Agencies such as charities and foreign embassies, without such numbers for cross-checking purposes, would be issued a special tax registration number, so Ottawa can establish a gasoline excise refund tax roll. It will ultimately list all those obviously eligible to receive the excise tax refund, either in whole or in part, for gasoline used in business.
The computer will also be programmed to reject for manual processing all applications for refunds above a certain, as yet unspecified, amount, depending on the classification of the applicant.
One official suggested as an example that a salesman claiming a refund equivalent to 100,000 miles of driving in a year would likely be questioned on the refund claim, since salesmen normally drive 40,000 miles each year on the average.
Income tax experts fear there could be a repeat of problems of a few years ago, when some claimants for unemployment insurance were discovered to be preparing fictitious claims supported by self-prepared T-4 slips, obtaining UIC payments illegally for a few months, and then abandoning the fictitious identity and disappearing before the computers could catch up with them.
The tax experts note that even using the social insurance number to cross check applications is far from foolproof, since it is sometimes easy to obtain or use a false number.
And the fact that the excise tax refund applications will be filed separately from an income tax return-supposedly to allow speedy refunds-will increase the risks of illegal claims, especially by individuals.
Refund claim forms are being printed and will be available as soon as the tax changes are made.
If ever any measure was ill-conceived, this excise tax bill certainly was. Why has the government done this? Forced by the opposition, particularly by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), to announce when he would bring down the budget, the minister was forced to bring in a budget although he had no budgetary proposals to make. Finally, the budget he brought down was devoid of new ideas. It will do little to alleviate this country's problems. This legislation is ill-conceived and will cause considerable hardship for this country's citizens.

July 16, 1975
Excise Tax Act
My remarks have meant to convey the incredible problems that will be created by this incredible tax. People across this country, especially small businessmen, are concerned about the government's increasing intervention in their affairs and the complexities the government is introducing into the operation of business and the earning of a livelihood. This tax is discriminatory in principle. It imposes the burden of the one-price oil equalization policy on the individual consumer. It also discriminates against all users of gasoline because it imposes additional administrative burdens and, on businessmen and farmers, additional problems to do with the reporting of income. It seems to me that many small businessmen and farmers will question whether it is worth going to the trouble of applying for a rebate. Many will wonder if the moneys they may receive as a refund will compensate them for the additional income tax calculations and verification. Time is money to the small businessman. The Minister of Finance can be sure that this bill will bring one substantial result: it will create substantial resentment on the part of hundreds of thousands of this country's citizens. I ask the minister to reconsider the advisability of introducing this legislation and I ask members on the government side to consider seriously, during their caucus deliberations, the advisability of withdrawing the provisions of this bill with regard to the excise tax on gasoline. The Minister of Finance has, by introducing this legislation and other budgetary provisions, given us an opportunity to demonstrate our responsibilities-after all, it is the role of the opposition to criticize constructively-to good effect in the interests of Canada's future.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) with respect to the tirade of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Anyone who has listened to the hon. member for Nickel Belt for about 2'A years cannot help feeling that our socialist friend has only one speech, culled from his cliche collection and closet full of conspiracy theories-theories he brings forward when speaking on any issue before the House. When one has been here for some time, exposed on a daily basis to the tantrums of NDP members, it is hard not to wonder whether they have had one fresh thought in the past 30 years.
I remember being told as a child that if a person does not have something kind to say, he should not say anything at all. As a consequence, my comments with respect to the excise tax bill will be very brief. On the night of June 23, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced his most recent budget, his fifth in a little over three years. The most charitable thing that can be said about it is that the government has found a cure for voter apathy in Canada. As a statement of economic policy, however, the budget constitutes an admission of failure and an abdication of responsibility. When we cut through the rhetorical weeds that mask what these proposals really mean to Canadians, when we push aside the excuses, the apologies and the equivocations so that the effect of this document upon our economy can properly be viewed, it becomes clear that it represents one of the most regressive

and unfair statements of policy to be made by any federal government in Canada in recent years.
What is the government's solution to the country's rampant inflation? It is to raise prices, to increase government spending, to decrease the ability of the average person to cope by increasing taxes, and to allow the bureaucracy to expand even further. What is the government's response to the recession into which they have led us-the worst since the depression of 1929? It is to take yet a greater share of the national income at a time when our gross national product is in decline. What is the government's response to the plight of the farmers, small businessmen, housewives, senior citizens and working people? It is to ask them to tighten their belts at the very time the government itself refuses utterly to reduce waste or contain its greed.
If there was ever a document which details the government's intellectual squalor and its absolute lack of compassion for those least able to protect themselves, it is this budget. And if there ever was one single piece of legislation which symbolizes the contempt in which the Liberal government holds the people of Canada, particularly the people of my province, it is this proposal for a tax increase of ten cents on gasoline.
On budget night the Minister of Finance stated he hoped his budget would lead to the conservation of gasoline and the increased use of public transportation. Two days later, however, when questioned about these assertions by my leader he was forced to admit that the primary purpose of the tax was to pay for maintaining a single oil price in Canada. He added that it was difficult at this stage to estimate how much gas would be conserved. Asked what the administrative cost of collecting the tax would be, he confessed he simply did not know.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one purpose for this tax and for the other tax increases in the budget, and that is to pay for the unrestrained growth in federal spending. This is why income taxes are increasing, and this is why the government has decided to unload the staggering cost increases of medicare into the laps of the provinces, despite the fact that medicare is a federal program and that some provinces, such as Ontario which had a completely adequate medical insurance plan already in place, were strongly opposed to the program.
The members of the Progressive Conservative Party support the concept of one gasoline price for Canada but reject unequivocally the idea that the one-price system should be financed by those least able to pay, through a regressive excise tax. Instead, we believe it should be paid for out of general tax revenue and that those with the highest incomes should be asked to pay the highest share of the cost.
On the Friday following the budget presentation I asked the Minister of Finance about the problems of people in rural areas who need their cars because there is no adequate public transportation. I asked him whether the government would rebate this unfair gas tax to them or, if not, whether he could provide an assurance that rural Canadians would be given access to decent public transportation. His enlightening reply was that I had asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) questions about the need for public transportation on earlier occasions. Everyone knows how much action has been taken by the Minis-
July 16, 1975

ter of Transport about public transportation in our area. None.
The constituency I have the honour to represent is largely rural, and residents often have to commute long distances to work. This is particularly the case in Dufferin county where virtually whole subdivisions in Shelburne, Grand Valley and Orangeville commute daily to Brampton and Bramalea or through to Toronto. It is also the situation in other areas where people must drive to work in Owen Sound or Kitchener-Waterloo or Guelph. The effect of this added tax upon the people of my area who have been forced by the failure of the government's housing policies to move many miles from the city because they can no longer afford to live near their work will be disastrous. They are the ones who will have to pay for the government's lack of self-restraint.
The Minister of Finance has pretended that the purpose of his budget was to deal with the recession and with inflation. It must be obvious to anyone who reads it that instead of presenting solutions to the economic problem, the budget is really designed to find new revenues for the government, the minister having so drastically misjudged the nation's economic health when he committed us to massive spending programs in previous budgets. Big spenders like the Minister of Finance manage fine when the economy is growing rapidly; the increased tax revenues derived from large profits and high incomes cover the cost of the expensive programs he and his colleagues have introduced. But when the economy goes into recession, when profits are low and individual incomes begin to fall as hundreds of thousands of Canadians are put out of work, the cost of social programs such as unemployment insurance, manpower retraining, pension supplements and welfare increase dramatically.
This is the box in which the Minister of Finance found himself as he prepared his budget. The inflation his government had helped to create was driving up the cost of government programs. Many people who were suffering from the recession were making claims upon the national treasury, and there was a shortfall in tax revenues because profits were falling and many unemployed people.vyere in a lower income bracket. Thus, on the night of June 23 the country was faced with the sorry spectacle of the Minister of Finance announcing that he was trimming expenditures by $1 billion at the same time as the budget was being increased by about $2 billion over last year's. This he described as proof of the government's determination to show restraint.
The leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario was quick to grasp the effect the federal government's budget would have on Ontario. This man, who about two weeks earlier had hosted the Prime Minister's flying circus at his farm, stated that the federal Liberals had not asked for his advice about the budget, adding that as far as he knew, there really wasn't much of an association between the federal and provincial Liberal parties. I was intrigued to see that the day after the provincial mini-budget was brought down all the government members were wearing red carnations in their lapels to commemorate the election a year ago. I could not confirm the rumour that Mr. Nixon, in Toronto, was wearing a forget-me-not in his lapel that day.
Excise Tax Act
Last Monday's Ontario mini-budget was designed to offset the worst effects of the federal budget upon a province which is suffering disproportionately from the current recession and which will be worst hit by the present proposals of the Minister of Finance. It is worth while considering what federal mismanagement of the economy will do to my province because it is Ontario more than any other jurisdiction which has borne the financial costs of confederation.
It is often popular, not only in the House of Commons but in various parts of Canada to bad-mouth the political and economical contributions my province has made. But I think if one were to look up the record it would become clear that Ontario members of parliament speak less to ask for special concessions or to defend their province than do members representing other provinces. It is about time some acknowledgment was made of the enormous benefits which have been given gladly by Ontarians to the rest of Canada for the last 100 years. It is Ontario, with its manufacturing economy based on secondary industry, which has suffered most from the government's recession. It is our unemployment rate which has increased faster than that of any other jurisdiction.
Even before the June 23 budget, the unemployment rate for Ontario was projected to be 5.6 per cent for this year. The Turner budget can be expected to increase unemployment to 6.1 per cent. Before the budget, our gross provincial product was expected to grow by .7 per cent. Now that figure has been reduced to less than half; the new projection is .3 per cent.


Robert Knight Andras: Who by, Darcy McKeough?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, Darcy McKeough. I am intrigued that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has now entered the arena, because he and his colleagues in the Liberal Party will have an opportunity very soon, as will my hon. friend from Nickel Belt, to explain the positions of their respective parties to the voters of Ontario and to see what the verdict of the people of Ontario is respecting the actions of the provincial and federal governments. I think later this fall, after the provincial election, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will have some cause for reflection on the activities of his colleagues and himself at the federal level.
According to the provincial ministry of treasury, economics and intergovernmental affairs, the federal policies of the June budget indicate an additional annual drain from the Ontario economy of $740 million. The effects on Ontario of both the 1974 and 1975 price increases will result in Ontario consumers paying almost $1.5 billion more for their energy needs in a full year.
In a practical sense, as the provincial minister of energy has suggested, the proposals in the federal finance minister's budget to increase the price of petroleum in August by five cents a gallon, and to add a ten cents excise tax to the price of gasoline at the pumps, is immediately tantamount to trying to nickel-and-dime Ontario consumers to the death. The citizens of Ontario are quite prepared to accept a slight increase in the cost of gasoline if it can be shown that an increase in the price is necessary to find
July 16, 1975

Excise Tax Act
new oil reserves and that any price increase will go into exploration.
Government members have tried to confuse the issue by implying that increased prices are in fact going for new exploration, but let us take a look at what is actually happening. In the case of the 1974 price increase of $2.70, almost all of the increase went into the hands of government and not into the hands of the producer. By 1976, the federal share of oil revenues will have increased by 800 per cent-and this in the space of two years. The share going to the government of Alberta will have increased 400 per cent. The oil companies' share will have gone up by only 25 per cent. In understanding this legislation we should remember that every single cent of this ten-cent a gallon excise tax will be going into the hands of the federal government. That tax will likely bring $350 million into federal coffers.
It is apparent from the report of the National Energy Board tabled in the House today by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that there is not sufficient incentive at the present time in Canada to establish new reserves of energy and to bring them on stream and to market. The reason is not that there have not been significant increases in price to consumers in Canada over the last year or two; the reason is the greed of governments, particularly the federal government, which has prevented significant incentives being offered producers to look for new reserves of energy in this country.
The tax measure we are debating today is unfair and regressive in its entirety and I express my unequivocal opposition to it. Its effects upon our already weakened economy will be extremely harmful and the damage it will do to any anti-inflation policy will be disastrous.
I believe it is wrong for the federal government to be calling for restraint from the working people in Canada at the same time as federal expenditures, on a national accounts basis, are increasing by 16 per cent over last year. I believe that it is wrong for federal policies to drive up the cost of living when it is already too high. And I believe that it is wrong for this Liberal government, through its failure to control inflation, to allow the life savings of Canada's elderly, who cannot protect themselves, to be devoured by inflation.
No government with any understanding of the problems of this country, and no minister of finance with any compassion for the average Canadian, would propose these measures. I ask the Minister of Finance to admit that his budgetary program was wrong, and to try to contain the damage that is being done to our economy by withdrawing this bill. The people of Canada deserve to be treated better than they have been treated by this arrogant and incompetent government.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether it is the wish of the House to call it six o'clock. May I utter tomorrow the words of wisdom that I am going to impart to the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Before I put the question the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) wants to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether I could obtain the consent of the House to have the House revert to the presentation of reports by standing and special committees. I have spoken to the House leaders and there appears to be consent to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed that the hon. member be allowed to revert to motions to present a report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leonard C. Jones: Explain.


Jean-Jacques Blais: There has been an indication on the part of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) that he wishes to know which committee it is. It is the mixed committee on labour relations in the public service.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth Report of Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service-Mr. Blais.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It has been suggested that we call it six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it not agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir).



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 7416).
July 16, 1975
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why there has been such a change of heart. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) gave his consent, as did other members opposite, and suddenly they have changed their minds.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I nodded my head in agreement. I nodded my head because I wanted to hear what the hon. member had to say, not because I wanted to call it six o'clock.


Robert Muir: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have such great respect for the parliamentary secretary that I will not say that he is completely wrong. Let me say he is just playing around with the truth, because the delightful lady member in front of him suggested it and he agreed. In any event, let us go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There should be a point of order there. She is not a delightful lady; she is an hon. member!


Mrs. Campagnolo:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record that I am not a delightful lady; I am a member of the House of Commons.


Robert Muir: I thought she was not only delightful but beautiful. In any event, if she resents that, I apologize. If I may continue without all these interruptions I should like to say a few words regarding this iniquitous measure now before the House, on behalf of the coal miners in my area, the steelworkers, the widows, the senior citizens, the unemployed, the fishermen, businessmen, railway workers, stevedores and all the others who are going to be hit, and hit badly. This is an unfortunate dicision on the part of the minister, and I sometimes wonder whether it is his decision.
In any event, before I deal with that I should like to refer to some comments made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I am sorry he is not here, because when I made an interjection he responded to it and I said I would tell him in a few minutes. In any event, may I say that when the New Democratic Party members wrap themselves in the robes of sanctity and purity and try to make the point that they are the only people in this country who worry about the poor, the workers, the orphans, the widows, the unemployed and the oppressed, what a hypocritical, holier than thou attitude this is! I did not know that all the Liberals, Conservatives, Social Cred-iters and the independent member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) were all great millionaires and capitalists. This has been indicated by a number of members of the NDP. It must be difficult to be afflicted with tunnel vision to the extent that you can see only one group as the people who worry in the country.


An hon. Member:: Haven't you got a speech?


Robert Muir: Yes, indeed I have a speech and I will refer to the minister's comments and his resolutions, but I should like to reply to the hon. member for Nickel Belt. He talks about the Liberals and the Conservatives. As much as I
Excise Tax Act
hate to admit it, there has been good legislation brought in by Liberal governments in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: -occasionally.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: There has been good legislation brought in by Conservative governments in this country.


An hon. Member:: Even more occasionally.


Robert Muir: However, my friend the hon. member for Nickel Belt can see nothing but socialism and thinks that no one else is able to represent the people of Canada. This can be done only by those who look to the socialist party. I should like him to know that I was involved in organizing unions, being on strike and out on the picket line, before he even knew what a union was. I started working in a coal mine before I was 15 years of age. We organized the workers and made the unions what they are today-of which the hon. member boasts, incidentally. Thousands of my friends are union members today and many of them still work in the coal mines. A vast majority of my association members are members of unions. I know who the workers are, as well as the hon. member.
The hon. member made reference to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Is that hon. member a millionaire? Did he ever work for a living? What does this word "worker" mean? If you are an automobile salesman, do you work all day? If you do not get your hands dirty, are you a worker? What is a worker? A person who works in an office all day is often more tired than a man who has been shovelling coal. I went through one mine explosion and survived, after a couple of weeks in hospital. I was caught in a rock fall and had my spine cracked in a number of places, but I survived after a couple of years in hospital. My point is that it is not just those holier than thou people who can represent the people of Canada and speak out on behalf of the workers.
This proposal that an additional ten cents per gallon of gasoline should be shouldered by the working men and women of this nation-and I mean all the people who work, including those in the banks, for the government, steelworkers and others-is not one I can support and I will not support it. This budget proposal signals the diminishing influence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) within the Trudeau administration. I suggest this is his final budget and he will not be around to present another one.
I would have to conclude, when comparing this budget proposal and the total budget with other budgets, that this monstrosity was the work of a cabinet committee rather than the work of the minister. It would appear that a cabinet committee married the minister to his abortive attempt to tackle the double problems of inflation and unemployment. However, the marriage lasted only until the end of the presentation of the budget, for when the minister's colleagues realized the extent of the disaster they had created, they quickly divorced themselves from its contents and are now quick to tell us, both inside and

July 16, 1975
Excise Tax Act
outside the House, that it is the responsibility of the minister to defend the contents of the budget.
This budget will increase the degree of inflation which has become a cruel and crushing burden for all Canadians but especially for the poor and the elderly who are on fixed incomes.


Mr. Railton:: It will get worse.


Robert Muir: I hear the doctor from Welland, I believe it is, saying it will get worse. I hope it will not get worse and I feel badly that a member supporting the government would make the statement that it will get worse.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out that the hon. member did not use the proper term when he referred to me as "the doctor from Welland". I might say that there are many doctors from Welland. I should also like to point out that when I suggested it was going to get worse, I meant that-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It is not proper for the hon. member to enter the debate at this point. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) has the floor.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. He is a member of an honourable profession and I did not think I was slurring or hurting him when I referred to him as "doctor". In any event, I will certainly not refer to him as the charming lady from Welland.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is someone on the other side of the House who knows the intentions of the government regarding the business for tomorrow and can inform the House.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we will continue with this bill.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.