1975-07-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provision of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Within one year, three men, Messrs. Cho, Chew and McGuire, employed by CN Telecommunications have been dismissed and their dismissal is in obvious violation of the company and union agreement which states that an employee cannot be discharged until his case has been thoroughly reviewed and he has been advised of the reasons for such a review. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to ask the Solicitor General for a full report on the involvement of the RCMP in this matter, request that the Minister of Labour investigate the firing of these men in relation to Section five (5) of the Canada Labour Code, and also that he order the Ministers of Transport and Communications to ascertain what input their respective departments had in these dismissals.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who is doubtless well aware of the tragedy which has again struck the town of Springhill over the weekend. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has had any conversations with the premier of Nova Scotia about any joint assistance that the two governments might give with a view to restoring the town of
Springhill. In any event, could the Prime Minister give the House some general indication of the attitude of his government toward assistance for Springhill?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government of course is aware of that disaster and has expressed concern. There has been no request from the government of the province as of a short while ago for the federal government to assist in any way. My understanding is that the provincial government is looking into the disaster and is asking itself whether it wishes to inform the federal government of its need for assistance. The House knows that the federal government has a set of rules under which it assists provinces when disasters reach a certain proportion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the somewhat successful joint effort of the provincial and federal governments years ago in encouraging the economy of Springhill by, for example, locating a minimum security penitentiary there, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, with a view to providing some encouragement to the people in that gallant community, he would discuss with the Solicitor General the possible advisability of a further expansion of that institution and whether he would discuss with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the prospect of any development of a coal mine in Cumberland county.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will certainly draw the recommendations of the Leader of the Opposition to the ministers.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Considering that the most recently published Gallup poll indicated that 71 per cent of Canadians believe that there is now sufficient U.S. capital in Canada and 58 per cent of our population want the government to take steps to buy back majority control of major U.S. firms, can the Prime Minister say why the government, in bringing in its regulations to implement the Foreign Investment Review Act, brought in regulations which, to paraphrase what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said on Friday, will not change in all likelihood in absolute terms the amount of U.S. investment in the Canadian economy, and further, why specific measures were not announced by the government to move in the direction in which Canadians clearly want the government to move?
29669 -7l/2

July 21, 1975
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that in paraphrasing the minister, the hon. member has probably inadvertently given an incorrect impression of what the minister said. As to the rest of it, this seems to be argumentation. With respect, I would say that if Your Honour would allow me, I could give a very long resume on the government's position on this, but the occasion on which to make that kind of intervention was on Friday when the minister made his statement.
In brief, this government is more interested in channelling Canadian investments in the future into areas which are growth oriented and which are important in the new industrial age, rather than spending our savings and earnings to buy up any old thing just because it does not happen to be majority Canadian owned. That is a forward looking position which I do not expect the New Democratic Party to share.


ALLEGED GOVERNMENT PROMISE THAT FUTURE RESOURCE UNDERTAKINGS WOULD BE FIFTY PER CENT CANADIAN OWNED
John Edward Broadbent: In one of
his more forward looking statements in the middle of an election campaign just over a year ago the Prime Minister indicated that in the future at least 50 per cent of all new undertakings in the resource field in Canada would be Canadian owned, and at that time the government promised it would do something to move in this forward looking direction. I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell us when or if we might expect the government to move in that direction?


Mr. Baldwin:: Next election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the last election campaign we also indicated that we would be proclaiming phase 2 of the Foreign Investment Review Act, which we did on Friday. We proclaimed it for some time next fall. I made it quite clear before to the House and to the country that we would not do all these things at the snap of a finger. They would be timed to suit the various contingencies of the economy, and that is why we took one step on Friday. We will be taking further steps later on.


REASON FOR DELAYING IMPLEMENTATION OF PHASE II UNTIL OCTOBER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we wait. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I would like to ask him why the government thought it necessary to wait until the middle of October for the implementation of phase II, and why it could not give 24 hours notice, once the regulations were drawn up and made known to the civil servants, of the implementation of that act.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is for a very practical reason. We have to hire, and train people for the agency to

administer phase II of the act. Those people have not been hired or trained. The second very practical reason is that we did not want to interfere with new business decisions which have been taken in all good faith and which would be cut off if we did this in the very arbitrary way which the hon. member is suggesting.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Can he tell us whether there have been any developments with regard to the request of the Department of Transport to the Treasury Board for a subsidy towards the installation of an approach system at the Val-d'Or airport?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, that is an administrative matter. When a decision has been reached, it will be announced.


UNITED STATES QUOTA ON BEEF-IMPORT QUOTA ON EGGS- REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING WITH UNITED STATES OFFICIALS
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On July 16 in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated in the House that there would be a meeting in Washington last Friday, June 18, between Canadian and American officials and I quote, "with a view toward solving the impasse with respect to cattle and beef products moving both ways." I ask the Minister of Agriculture what is the current status of these negotiations, and is there another meeting in the offing?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that meeting did take place in Washington last Friday. I believe it was a constructive meeting. There was an exchange of views, and when we are in a position to provide further information to the House, we will, of course, do so.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I will ask a supplementary question, I presume to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the press reports indicating American preoccupation with eggs in these negotiations, can the minister indicate whether the subject of our egg quotas was brought up during that meeting last Friday, and if so, can he state at least in general terms what the conclusions were regarding this phase of the negotiations?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the American side did raise this question with the Canadian team, and the Canadian
July 21, 1975

team took note of the representations of the American side.


HOUSING
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who on April 28 said he was doing everything possible to make sure mortgage rates were kept as low as possible. Given that CMHC has now increased the rate from 9-3/s to 9-V* per cent for loans to provinces and municipalities for socially assisted housing and from 10 per cent to 11 per cent for loans under section 58, what justification can the minister give for the increases? Is this what he means by keeping interest rates as low as possible?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member realizes that under section 58 this is money lent to people as the lenders of last resort-people who can well afford as much as any Canadians can afford existing mortgage rates but in areas not served by conventional lenders. We do not think that public funds should be used to subsidize people, thus giving them an advantage they would not have anywhere else when that money can go to people who really need the assistance in the lower income groups. This is where our priority will be. In so far as lending to the provinces is concerned, this is something over which there is no discretion. We lend it to them at a standard rate % of one per cent over the rate at which we borrow from the Department of Finance and that is something over which there is no discretion.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister inform the House what effect he believes this increase in rates will have on socially assisted housing-that is the money available to the provinces will have in this public housing sector? Can he tell the House if any assessment was made prior to the increase as to the effects it would have on the number of starts in the public housing sector?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will materially affect starts. It does make it a little more difficult. What it means is that our subsidies under 44(1)(b) will be in place to assist those who need assistance and that is what these agreements are for.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given that the minister has altered his position with regard to mortgage rates for socially assisted housing, will he now give us assurance that this is not the first step in an across the board increase in CMHC interest rates and that other NHA loans will not be similarly affected?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have not changed my position in relation to socially assisted housing. I can only say that CMHC lends the money at no more than % per cent
Oral Questions
above our borrowing rate, the minimum fraction of a percentage needed to administer these loans, which has always taken place over the borrowing rate.


POSITION OF CANADA AT FORTHCOMING GATT NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Jack Murta (Ijisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is somewhat supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. It appears that Canada may go into the next round of GATT negotiations with, literally, "egg on its face" because of what happened in the past few months and because of our trade moves. Can the minister tell the House specifically where Canada stands? What will our position be in these talks coming up this fall? Are we going to opt for more protection or are we moving into an area of freer trade?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very clear that we are, as a signatory of the Tokyo round, interested in trade liberalization measures. In respect of the specific reference to eggs, I think the Minister of Agriculture, on a previous occasion, has made it very clear that we believe that the egg import quotas are fully consistent with our obligations under the GATT.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister prepared to reveal to the House today the purpose of his visit to the United Nations last Friday and in particular to say whether he discussed with the Secretary General the matter of the PLO and its presence at the upcoming criminology conference?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to make a statement later in the day on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was of course reluctant to advise the House in the place of the minister of his intention to make that statement. The minister has now done that, and I think any questions about that subject ought to be deferred until such time as the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs makes his statement on motions later this day.

July 21, 1975
Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE


SUGGESTED IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT OF AMENDMENT TO PREVENT APPELLATE COURTS SUBSTITUTING VERDICT OF GUILTY FOR JURY ACQUITTAL
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Justice has to do with the announcement he made the other day, which is very welcome, of changes that he contemplates in the Criminal Code. Among them is one on which the minister, in the face of public opinion, has reversed himself. I refer, of course, to the objections I and some other members raised over and over again about the danger to our jury system posed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler case. As there is an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal of Quebec against the second acquittal of Dr. Morgentaler and as this may lead to a parade of further prosecutions, would the minister consider bringing in an amendment to end this course at once-i think there is general agreement for this-instead of waiting until the fall or until the next part of the adjourned session of this House?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiment of the right hon. gentleman. The Criminal Code amendments encompass many important things and we might single out six or one dozen of them for immediate passage, according to his theory. I think the House would like the important nature of those amendments to be studied in committee and the usual processes to be followed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has there been any communication to the minister or to his deputy from the Attorney General or Minister of Justice of Quebec suggesting that this legislation should be held up pending the present appeal which, in normal circumstances, will not be heard by the Quebec Court of Appeal until October or November?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, there has not. I would also appreciate it if the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert would not discuss the case which is before the courts.


SUGGESTED SEPARATION FROM BILL C-71 OF AMENDMENT PREVENTING APPELLATE COURTS FROM SUBSTITUTING VERDICT OF GUILTY FOR JURY ACQUITTAL
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is along the lines of that asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. As Bill C-71 is like a legal omelette, is the minister prepared to separate from the bill that part having to do with the verdicts of juries being upset by appeal courts and the Supreme Court of Canada? Would he separate that part from the legal omelette?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the purpose of the separation was that referred to by the right hon. gentleman, I have already answered that part of the question. Speaking of the form of the bill, it seems to me that it is appropriate to have a good number of differ-

ent items in the Criminal Code dealt with in one Criminal Code amendment bill.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As premeditated and planned kidnapping for the purpose of extortion is a most cowardly crime, and as the minister has not interfered with the minimum penalties, will he work out an agreement with attorneys general to this effect: that those caught before the overt act is completed and therefore charged with attempt to commit the crime will not be allowed to free on bail while their trial is pending, for the sake of the safety and security of society generally and the fears of wives and children of people in public life and in business?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member meant by that question, nor what his friends were applauding. I take it he assumes that we should provide different treatment for all persons accused in one particular area, that is, treat them differently when it comes to bail and that sort of thing. I think that kind of broad generalization about the criminal process is not helpful. I think, if we were to come down to the actual examination of the question, that many of the hon. member's colleagues would back away from the idea of trying to deal in an abstract and general way with individuals who can quite properly be handled by the discretion of the courts under the present system.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from the minister's answer that he basically endorses the idea of these people being released so that they can duplicate the same violent crimes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the operation of Phase I of the Foreign Investment Review Act and, incidentally, the proposed operation of Phase II. Will the minister advise the House if his department has prepared any studies to do with the follow-up performance of those companies which have given undertakings to the review agency? Has there been any follow-up study in terms of their performance? Have there been any violations of the undertakings given with regard to takeovers during the operation of Phase I of the act?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the agency started to moni-
July 21, 1975

tor the results of the first set of undertakings which were given approximately a year ago last May. It will, on the anniversary date of each allowance, start the monitoring process to obtain information as to whether the company involved is living up to those undertakings. At the moment, it is too early to be able to provide any kind of definitive statement. All I can say is that the process of monitoring has already started.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: As I read the present act, it does not provide for sanctions to be applied with regard to violations in undertakings. Is the minister considering moving into the sanction area where there is a violation of an undertaking? Clearly, decisions taken after a takeover are economic rather than legal. Until the minister decides that sanctions are going to be applied, the Foreign Investment Review Act is a meaningless piece of paper.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the act provides for those sanctions. If the sanctions are needed, they will be applied.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given his office notice. Will the minister tell the House whether he has received reports on the dismissal of Messrs. Cho, Chew and McGuire, employees of CN Telecommunications on the pretext that they may be security risks?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I immediately got in touch with the president of CN. I am supposed to have another discussion with him later about this matter. I know they have been following this practice for a very long time. However, this practice worries me as much as the hon. member. This is a very serious question and I want to discuss it with the Prime Minister and the cabinet. Possibly the hon. member will agree to wait until we know all the implications of the decision before I answer in the House.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the PRG has applied for admission to the United Nations, can the minister assure the House that Canada will oppose such admission and will urge our allies to do likewise until the PRG lives up to its fading promises and releases the Canadian missionaries held captive for over four months?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the second aspect of the question,
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that following his recent representations, I wired the foreign minister of the PRG asking for an up-to-date report on the missionaries in question and suggesting that, in accordance with previous statements made by the PRG, these missionaries be released. I have not as yet received a reply to that representation. On the question of admission of the PRG to the United Nations, the government of Canada will consider that in relation to other applications for admission to that body.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: In view of the fact that for over four months the PRG seems to have been ignoring the various representations made to it, will the minister start talking the language these communist forces understand by advising them we will not go along with their request for admission to the United Nations and that that country will not receive any more foreign aid until such time as they return these Canadians to safety and freedom?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member's recommendation is pursuing contradictory objectives simultaneously.



ANGOLA-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON SITUATION AND MEASURES TO ENSURE SAFETY OF CANADIANS

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of continued fighting among rival left wing factions in Angola amounting to almost total war according to recent reports, can the minister give us any information as to the situation there and tell the House whether any steps have been taken to ensure the safety of Canadian nationals who may be in that country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have been following this situation. It is a matter of concern for Canada. I believe that Canada may have a certain role to play in this issue; but it is not taking the initiative in this situation.


John George Diefenbaker: It seems to be to abstain.



GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE TOWARDS UNITED NATIONS PLAN FOR SOUTHWEST AFRICA

Howard Earl Johnston: In the
light of the deteriorating situation in Angola, is the minister taking a less belligerent view toward Canadian involvement in United Nations plans to expose Southwest Africa to the same fate? The minister had some words to say about the fate of that area of Southwest Africa during his recent tour of the African continent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Apart from the state of belligerency which the hon. member mentioned, we have already stated as a government our attitude with respect to Southwest Africa. We have stated that we regard it as illegally a part of South Africa, we have supported a United Nations commission with respect to Namibia. We have indicated recently our willingness to assist the Commissioner in his efforts to provide training programs for a possible future

July 21, 1975
Oral Questions
corps of public servants who might manage a free Namibia.


Howard Earl Johnston: Has the Canadian government been approached to assist the United Nations relief operations in Angola?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATURAL GAS-INQUIRY AS TO ALLEGED SECRET REPORT INDICATING SHORTAGE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but he is not here; perhaps the Prime Minister, who supposedly knows a little bit about everything, might be prepared to reply. Has the government heard of an alleged secret document which came into its possession relating to the amount of natural gas available and apparently indicating there was a great shortage known to the government six or eight months ago?


An hon. Member:: Another hidden report.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I cannot respond directly to that question on behalf of the minister but I will take it as notice. He will be here tomorrow, and he will respond.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the parliamentary secretary ask the minister to search diligently and produce this document despite the well known proclivity of the government to act like a group of pack rats, hiding papers in all the cubby holes in its offices?



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with respect to representations made by the Nepean and Lucerne ratepayers' groups for a commuter rail service. In view of the urgent communications sent to the minister by the Lucerne group on June 24 and by the Nepean group on July 4, will the minister use his good offices to initiate a meeting of the agencies involved in order that this proposal, which has met fairly general public support, could be brought forward in an effort to determine whether the difficulties can be resolved and a commuter service established on both sides of the Ottawa River.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I will certainly use my good office, modest as it is, to bring the groups together. I am certainly interested, and I have met with ratepayers' groups on both sides of the river. We are anxious to develop a continuing dialogue

with them to make sure we are working toward common objectives to the extent humanly possible.


Walter David Baker: I want the minister to understand there have been letters sent to him on the dates I have mentioned. Could he review the rather extensive file from both groups and the National Capital Commission, which, by the way, has been most co-operative, and see whether this meeting could be brought on rather quickly in view of the time which has elapsed?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I will look into that question immediately.
I cannot promise to make a statement on motions because the hon. member might take me to task.



POST OFFICE


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that bargaining between the Post Office and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is at the conciliation board stage, which is an extremely important stage for discovery of a basis for a peaceful and mutually satisfactory settlement, and in view of the government's often repeated hope that collective bargaining can take place between the employer and employee without resort to strike or lockout, and in view of the minister's well-publicized tirade against the democratically elected leadership of CUPW in calling them dishonest, deceptive and irresponsible, will the minister explain to this House why he has deliberately prejudiced the very sensitive and important deliberatings of the conciliation board by engaging in yet another round of counter-productive and frankly childish name-calling?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: The hon. gentleman should know that no conciliation board has been set up yet. Second, I will admit my words may have sounded harsh. But I owe the hon. member an explanation. Some weeks ago in the House of Commons I was charged by the union with not providing adequate personnel in the department for processing grievances. I rectified that situation, and the grievances concerning the Montreal workers who were suspended have been on the desk of the deputy minister for over three weeks in the hope and anticipation that in case any of these suspensions were too severe, a review would reduce them to a minimum. The unions in question, despite the invitation of my department, have on three occasions postponed these negotiations and have now notified us that they will be unable to appear to plead for these workers until some time in August.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The minister ought to know that that stage that he outlined is really a fourth step and all the arguments have been presented at the prior steps. In view of the paranoid and childish outburst by the Post-
July 21, 1975

master General which can only have grave consequences, will the Prime Minister consider removing the Postmaster General from the cabinet? Alternatively, will he consider giving him the Munro treatment by checking him into the local army hospital for a rest?



LACK OF DENTISTS IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REQUEST FOR MORE NUTRITIONISTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister cause an investigation to be made into deplorable dental health conditions in the Northwest Territories where I understand there are only 15 dentists to serve a region 1, 500,000 square miles in extent; dentists are saying they are extracting teeth because they do not have time to do any preventive dentistry or filling?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is a shortage of dentists in the Northwest Territories. The problem has been endemic for several years, and to solve it, we have set up a special school where people are specially trained to give intermediate care in dentistry. The school is now operating at Fort Smith. Every year, a number of graduates will join the labour force, especially in the Northwest Territories, to alleviate the lack of qualified dentists. I trust graduates from this school will soon be numerous enough to meet the needs in the area.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With some respect for that answer, I hope it can be hastened along very quickly. Would the minister also do something to increase the number of nutritionists in that area, where people are consuming over three quarters of a cup of sugar a day, people who traditionally have not had sugar in their diets-in view of the fact that a lot of health problems are being caused in that area?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, here again the problem raised by the hon. member is real. Furthermore, the inquiry Nutrition Canada has confirmed certain data in this respect. We are trying to recruit qualified dieticians, but again I must point out to the hon. member that it is difficult to recruit all the trained staff required in the Northwest Territories. If the hon. member has a few suggestions to present regarding persons willing to go there I shall be pleased to heed them.

Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ATTEMPT TO EXPEL ISRAEL FROM UNITED NATIONS

Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the position of Canada in view of the announced intention of over 50 countries to seek this fall to expel Israel from the United Nations General Assembly?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be dealing with that subject a little later in my statement, but in order that the matter be dealt with immediately, I should like to say that the position of Canada obviously is in favour of the principle of universality and it will resist very vigorously any effort to change the status of Israel at the general assembly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* *
*



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, last week I gave notice to the Solicitor General that I intended to raise a question about the suggestion of the department that it build a classification penal institution in Port Perry, Ontario. In view of the reaction both pro and con in that small Ontario town to the suggestion, I wonder whether the minister has made up his mind as to what the department is going to do?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the penitentiaries service has decided to look at this proposal once more, and we are also looking at the possibility of placing the reception centre in that part of Ontario but perhaps in a different municipality.



HOUSING


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. In view of the fact that the minister is having difficulty with housing starts and increased mortgage rates, and in view of the fact that he now has a program available under residential rehabilitation to provide funds for those on low incomes to rehabilitate their homes so as to conserve fuel and ensure safety as well as extend the life of the home, can the minister indicate whether it is his intention to expand the rehabilitation program under neighbourhood improvements or rural native housing in order to relieve the situation now existing in Canada's housing crisis?
7754

July 21, 1975
Oral Questions


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, my colleague the Minister of Finance eliminated sales tax on insulation materials in the very recent budget. In addition to that, of great assistance in these programs, not only for all Canadians but especially for the rehabilitation program, the arrangements under NIP are being pursued rather vigorously. As my hon. friend knows, this has taken a while to get going, but thanks to his interest and that of many of my colleagues we are trying to accelerate the rehabilitation aspects. The hon. member has pointed out the difficulty with rural rehabilitation, but I am now in the process of discussing and reviewing this program in the hope that we can accelerate it.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the allocation for Canada under residential rehabilitation is only $7 million, and Newfoundland, for example, will be provided with only $600,000, which will not put a dent in the need, would the minister consider very seriously expanding the funds, since he has reduced the $100 million urban demonstration program and the funds of other programs, to provide relief to those people in greatest need?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of reviewing those allocations at this time to see how the provinces are taking them up as well, and I shall look at this with a considerable amount of sympathy and enthusiasm, not only to put a dent in but to take some of the dents out.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of President Park's statement that South Korea would develop its own nuclear weapons if the United States nuclear umbrella were withdrawn and the later statement of the South Korean Minister of Science and Technology, Mr. Choi, that his country has the technical potential to develop its own nuclear weapons, has the government decided to suspend the CANDU reactor sale, since these Korean government statements are completely inconsistent with the stated policy of the Canadian government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, a number of events have overtaken the comments attributed to these South Korean leaders, including my own seeking of assurances from the president, who advised me that his country had no intention of seeking and would not seek a nuclear weapons option. The government has not cancelled or altered in any way its undertaking to provide the nuclear reactor in question. Obviously, at the present time we are negotiating, with the Republic of Korea, safeguards agreements, and we are taking that and all other factors into account.



SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS-ALLEGED DIFFERENT TREATMENT BETWEEN DEMOCRACIES AND DICTATORSHIPS ON SAFEGUARDS

Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has stated on several occasions that since all treaties can be broken the government must assess the credibility of safeguard assurances. In light of the immensity of the risk involved, why is the government requiring signed treaties on this question with full fledged democracies while being satisfied with verbal assurances of affluent dictatorships around the world?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, apart from the comments of the hon. member, the government is seeking from all countries precisely the same bilateral safeguards agreements. We are not accepting verbal assurances from one group and treaties from another; we are seeking exactly the same agreement from each country with which we do business.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that last night passengers on Air Canada's flight 635, with destination at Fredericton, were unloaded at Moncton and sent forward to Fredericton by bus because the air strip at Fredericton is not long enough to land a fully loaded plane of the type used in flight 635, would the minister consider an in depth study of the airports at Fredericton, Saint John and Moncton to see what improvements are necessary for the proper safety of passengers in New Brunswick?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if they moved the passengers by bus it was because they were interested in the safety of the passengers; otherwise they would have tried to land. So I do not think the hon. member has proved his case. Secondly, this is not the only place in Canada where some types of planes cannot land. There are other cities as important as Moncton with the same problem. For example, at Quebec City a DC-8 cannot land because the runway is not long enough, but nobody, not even the MP, has asked to have a longer runway.



AIR CANADA


Fred Alward McCain: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has overlooked the fact that I said planes in service with Air Canada cannot land when fully loaded on these air strips. I have a
July 21, 1975

further supplementary question. Would the minister discuss with Air Canada the arrangements they have made to transport passengers by bus, in view of the fact that passengers have been brought by bus to the Fredericton airport after it had been closed, when no one was available, no transportation was available, no conveniences were available, and without very heavy pressures passengers would have been dumped in a dark airport without the means to get to their destination, which was the city of Fredericton.


Jean Marchand: I will see if I can obtain some information from Air Canada and supply it to the hon. gentleman.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It has been some time since I asked the minister what the intention of the government is with regard to extradition proceedings concerning criminal negligence cases as a result of the use of a motor vehicle. I am sure the minister must have made up his mind by now and I hope he has the answer for us this time.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the essential answer is that the facts which are the basis of that charge will ordinarily, if they involve death, also be grounds for a manslaughter charge which, of course, is covered in the extradiction treaty and that will ordinarily be satisfactory.



CANADIAN LABOUR COUNCIL


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It follows my questions of Friday concerning the Canadian Labour Council. In his answers on Friday the minister did not give an answer to the question concerning when we may expect the Canadian Labour Council to be initiated and put in place. I am wondering if the minister could also tell us whether he is able to give this House now any indication of exactly who will be represented on that council and by whom.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that the Canadian Labour Council is in its formative stage already. It has already had one meeting and is having another meeting later this week. There are approximately nine members from the labour side. There are nine members from the management or business side and, of course, the government is represented by a nucleus agreeable to both sides.
Oral Questions


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise the House approximately when he expects the council he has described to become existent officially and to be of assistance to the government, to labour and management?


John Carr Munro: It is already meeting and I think that fact is evidence that it is in existence.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding reports that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is negotiating an agreement with a private firm in Italy which would licence that firm in respect of the manufacture of the CANDU reactors in Italy and after certain time periods have elapsed would allow it to sell CANDU reactors outside of Italy to other countries. May I ask the minister what safeguards have been prepared by the government to ensure that CANDU reactors manufactured in Italy will not be sold to any country which is likely to use them for other than peaceful purposes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I noticed this morning in Hansard that this question, and I believe a number of others, were asked on Friday of my colleague the President of the Privy Council. I have received a certain amount of information but not enough to justify answering the question. I would like to do that as soon as I have the additional information I have requested.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when the minister secures this information will he also inform the House whether or not similar agreements are being negotiated with Argentina and Rumania.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the House whether the Department of Public Works has obtained a building from Air Canada or CAE in Winnipeg to house a computer centre for his department.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I know tenders have been called but I do not
29669-81/2

July 21, 1975
Oral Questions
know whether they have been closed or awarded because that is the function of the Department of Public Works. I will take notice of the question and find out for the hon. member.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as the jet aircraft are only a short distance from the buildings the Department of Public Works would be looking at, will the minister check to determine whether landings of the jet aircraft will affect the highly sensitive computer equipment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that would have been considered by the officials, but I will check.



FINANCE


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Could he tell the House when Canadians will receive their income tax refunds for the year 1974, as a great many are still waiting for them?


Stanley Ronald Basford: An
immense number of refunds have already been paid, in fact most of them. If the hon. member has some particular case where a refund has not yet been paid and the taxpayer feels he is entitled to a refund, I wish he would draw the particular case to my attention outside the House.



ALLEGED STATEMENT BY CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION CONCERNING EFFECT OF BUDGET CUTS-EFFECT OF BUDGET CUTS ON SERVICE IN POOR PROVINCES

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of the statement made by the CMA that the budgetary policies concerning health announced in the budget will result in the rationing of health services in certain parts of the country? If the minister is aware of that statement would he give the House his unequivocable assurance that such rationing will not take place.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the CMA has not declared what the hon. member said.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the budgetary measures announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not reduce the cost of health services but simply transfer the burden to the shoulders of the provinces, would the minister care to make a statement on motions in this House indicating what action will be taken to ensure that health services will not be reduced particularly in the poorer provinces.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already clearly indicated, as did the Minister of Finance, that there is no reason why the measures announced should involve any reduction whatever of the quality of health services in Canada; much to the contrary, I feel that together with the provinces, we could even take steps to improve services while controlling cost increases which, especially during recent years, have proven to be very high.



SALE OF CANDU REACTORS BY ITALIAN COMPANY UNDER LICENCE-GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF SALES AND SAFEGUARDS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns an answer given to me by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on July 10 with regard to safeguards in connection with any CANDU reactors exported from Italy under licence. In his answer the minister said that the Government of Canada would continue to insist that Canadian safeguard standards apply to any sale by Italy of CANDU reactors to third party countries. Is that a correct statement that was made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on July 10 and what mechanism does Canada intend to employ to enforce those safeguards.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will look at the answer given by my colleague and I will advise the hon. member whether I can agree with him that it is an accurate statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton on a point of order.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last you gave the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) an opportunity to raise a point of order in which he asked whether I had checked Hansard or was attempting to mislead this House. I want to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that in fact I had read Hansard very carefully and was not intentionally misleading the House, because although the word "often" appears in the minister's answer, the next sentence indicates that he expects people, when they have been found guilty of one charge, to plead guilty to following charges. It was the word "expects" with which I was most concerned. I should point out that if in fact the minister had answered the question I posed to him, he would not have got himself into the bind.
July 21, 1975



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies of an exchange of correspondence between myself and the Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards on the subject of the Official Languages Act of Quebec.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, earlier the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) asked me about my visit to the Secretary General at the United Nations on Friday. I confirm that the visit did take place and my main purpose in seeing the Secretary General was to discuss the UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. In the course of that discussion I advised the Secretary General of the United Nations that Canada does not wish to proceed with the Fifth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have sought the Secretary General's co-operation in obtaining a postponement of the congress, and he has undertaken to study the situation in order to clarify the position. In the government's view, this congress cannot be held successfully anywhere this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members will recall that at the fourth congress held in Kyoto in 1970, the Government of Canada, in consultation with the province of Ontario, proposed that the venue of the next congress be Toronto, in September of 1975. This proposal was accepted by delegations and subsequently confirmed by the General Assembly. Since that time, however, there has been a steady deterioration of the atmosphere in which international conferences are held. I need hardly mention the discord which marred the sixth special session and the last regular session of the General Assembly, the recent conferences of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, UNIDO, and of the International Labour Organization, ILO, as well as the International Women's Year conference in Mexico a few weeks ago.
Whereas a minimum of co-operation is essential to any progress in the international field, we have witnessed lately excessive confrontation on issues that were not related to the subject matter of conferences. The ingredi-
Crime Conference
ents are well known: racialism in Southern Africa, the Middle East conflict, producer-consumer relations and the full range of economic development problems subsumed under calls for a "New World Economic Order". Canada believes that these are very real and difficult problems which must be dealt with urgently, in the appropriate international institutions, before they poison the body politic of the United Nations family; and let there be no doubt that we consider it necessary and desirable that political factors take their proper place even in the most technical of conferences. But they must meet some test of relevance, and in recent United Nations conferences this has clearly not been the case.
Hon. members are well aware that in respect of the Toronto congress on crime prevention, which was to take place next September, one of these issues had already become paramount. It arose from the resolution adopted in November, 1974, by the General Assembly, with Canada dissenting, inviting the Palestinian Liberation Organization, PLO, to attend its sessions as a permanent observer and, in a similar capacity, conferences convened under the auspices of the General Assembly or other organs of the United Nations. Accordingly, the Government of Canada was informed by the United Nations secretariat some time ago that observers from the PLO had been invited to attend the fifth congress on crime prevention and that the Canadian authorities were expected to allow entry, sojourn and exit to these participants.
Needless to say, it is with reluctance that the government has decided to seek postponement of the congress, but we concluded that it would not be possible, in present circumstances, to hold a successful congress on crime prevention in Canada or anywhere else. We are all aware of the public outcry for or against the admission to Canada, for this congress, of observers from the Palestinian Liberation Organization. We have all been worried by its divisive effect upon Canadian public opinion. We could not ignore the risk of public disorders. These factors would have led any government to reconsider a decision to host an international conference. But in the final analysis, two factors dominated in our discussions. The first was the inevitable intrusion of unrelated political considerations into the proceedings of the congress. The second was the re-escalation of violence in the Middle East and the consequent spread of its bitterness into Canada and subsequently into the congress itself.
It is obvious that such intrusion of the Middle East conflict, by adding to the already hopeless confusion between civil crimes and acts of war, would distort and subvert the purposes of what has essentially been up to now, and should remain, a technical meeting of experts from all countries, striving to develop international cooperation in a field of vital importance to the rule of law and to public order everywhere. As host country, we felt that Canada had assumed a major responsibility for the success of this congress, and in such an unfavourable political climate we did not see how we would possibly carry out our responsibility. I should add that we were also concerned about the coincidence of the congress with the seventh special session of the General Assembly on development and international economic co-operation, since the contentious atmosphere of one would in all likelihood seep into the other.

July 21, 1975
Crime Conference
However, after an extensive review of the government's domestic and international obligations, we decided to inform the Secretary General of the United Nations that we did not want to be relieved of the responsibility for holding this congress but, rather, wished to postpone it. We did not want to withdraw our invitation to the United Nations, and we tried to avoid any steps which might have called into question our long-standing commitment to the principles of the United Nations. I emphasize that Canada's willingness to participate in and contribute to the operations of United Nations agencies remains undiminished.
The respite obtained by postponement must be effectively used by all to bring about sufficient improvement in attendant political conditions so that we may have reasonable assurances that technical conferences such as the fifth United Nations congress on crime prevention will be useful and productive. We hope that current negotiations for the reduction of tensions between some of the parties to the Middle East conflict will prove successful in coming months, and we will actively support the continuing efforts of the parties directly involved and of the United States government toward that goal.
Furthermore, the next General Assembly of the United Nations will provide an opportunity to affirm the principle of universality as a fulfilment of what ought to be a basic aim of the United Nations. More specifically, we will resist any attempt to exclude Israel or any other country from the proceedings of the General Assembly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Acceptance of this principle would guarantee the status of Israel within the community of nations and thus remove one cause of instability in the area. So that in requesting the postponement of the congress, Canada is not shirking its responsibilities but actually taking on new ones. Through new initiatives, both bilateral and multilateral, the government will try to improve the political situation in the Middle East and in the United Nations, notably through our participation in the next session of the General Assembly which may be crucial for the future of the organization, given the fundamental character of the issues on which debates are expected to focus. Canada will consult with other interested countries on the ground rules governing technical discussions in United Nations arenas. Either independently or in co-operation with others, we will attempt to formulate and seek support for an effective resolution in the General Assembly on this question.
I also intend to accept, during the autumn, outstanding invitations to visit a number of countries in the Middle East. These visits, which the government already considered most useful for strengthening our relations with this region of the world, have taken a new urgency following the difficulties we encountered in holding the U.N. congress on crime prevention. The House can be assured that I will take this opportunity to solicit the views of my hosts on these difficulties and seek their views on the United Nations as a universal forum and an effective international instrument.

Hon. members should note that our decision to seek the postponement of the congress for the reasons stated is consistent with the policy of the government on the Middle East. We will continue to cultivate, as we have done in the past, friendly and co-operative relations with all states in the region and to attach great importance to the development of these relations. Likewise, Canada has tried in the past to maintain a balanced and objective approach to the Middle East conflict and will continue to do so. We have always supported and defended the right of the state of Israel to exist in peace with its neighbours, behind secure and recognized borders. We have stated our conviction that no peaceful and stable solution to this regional conflict can be found without the participation of the Palestinians and the just settlement of their claims.
We have condemned the use of violence as a political instrument or as a means of retribution. We have partic-pated in all UN peacekeeping and cease-fire supervision missions in the Middle East and contributed to the United Nations relief operations for Palestinian refugees. We have advocated, and continue to advocate, the full implementation of Security Council resolution 242. All of this, therefore, continues to be government policy.
We are confident that the initiatives to be taken by Canada and other countries on the future of the United Nations and the Middle East will lead to a different atmosphere in which the postponed Fifth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders can be held in Canada, at a time to be decided upon, with sufficient assurances of success. It was agreed with the Secretary General of the United Nations that we should consult further on this question, and I expect to be in touch with him later this week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the lengthy statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), I can only conclude that the minister is becoming more and more adroit in the art of diplomacy, of course with a little help from the opposition. It is obvious that we are here in the presence of what could be called dynamic leadership. Issues are not settled, they are postponed, and they are postponed in such a way as to imply, for instance, that in the future no technical meetings of the United Nations will be able to take place unless this issue has been resolved.
I find it strange to hear the minister say to the House that he does not know if the conference will not be held. He has only approached the Secretary General, and the minister said: "He has undertaken to study the situation in order to clarify his position." That is all we know. What will the Secretary General say? What will be his decision? Nobody knows. How long will this conference be postponed? Nobody knows. Will it take place in six months' time, or a year? Will it take place elsewhere? In another sentence the minister said: "It cannot be a successful congress on crime prevention, in Canada or anywhere else." Must we draw the conclusion that the government is now taking the position that for months and months ahead, unless the Middle East conflict is resolved, there
July 21, 1975

can be no meaningful conferences of the United Nations, whether on crime prevention or anything else, within Canada or elsewhere in the world? That is a question to which we would like to receive an answer.
We are pleased to know that where Mr. Kissinger has failed, the minister would probably succeed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: Now he is going to travel to the Middle East, and whether it is-


Walter David Baker: By helicopter?


Claude Wagner: -by helicopter or otherwise, we certainly wish him good luck. However, in the meantime I find it very strange that the government has come to this decision, not because it is good for the country that this conference should not take place at this time, but because we all know what friction has already been caused. We all know that this decision will be viewed by many Canadians as a postponement, but at least also a guarantee that there will be security for our citizens and there will be no violence in September in Toronto. That is one thing which is sure. On the other hand, this decision should not be viewed by Canadians of Arab descent, for instance, as a slight or any expression of a partisan position. Rather, it should be viewed as an expression by the people of Canada of our concern for the continued rule of law and the continued commitment to a peaceful society in which all Canadians enjoy the freedom to express their own views.
Therefore, on this basis, because the government has been attentive to what has been said by the opposition, by leaders in government, by the provincial government of Ontario, by police chiefs, by the bar association and by the people of Canada, and has reached the decision that for the moment no conference should be held, we are grateful. However, when will the issue be resolved, and in what manner? What will be the impact of that government decision on the future of our participation in the United Nations? For the moment we expect more answers. I doubt whether we will receive them, but we expect something different from the government in the form of leadership and something more substantive than simply hoping that the problem will disappear with time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Too often it has been the habit of this government to say to the people of Canada that, hopefully, the problems will be resolved.

. . . in due course. And considering the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it may be a good thing that the government take a lesson from this situation. The government waited too long. As a result, it allowed frictions to develop within the country, and threats to be heard in certain cities. Discord was apparent everywhere. In the final analysis, after having amused itself, the government issued ambiguous statements and finally adopted a compromise situation, which was not real one-putting off the conference until later.
Crime Conference
I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will learn from this problem by paying greater attention to the claims made by the opposition as well as to suggestions it may submit to the House and that, secondly it will try a more dynamic type of leadership than our present one, which smacks of procrastination.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, roughly a week ago the leader of this party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), issued a statement on the PLO on behalf of our caucus and it is the basis of our present thinking on this matter.


An hon. Member:: Not always.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Always. Perhaps some members of the House do not know what was said at that time. It was a short statement but a direct and clear one. We said that once again we expressed our support for the continued existence of the state of Israel within secure boundaries. We added that we support the people of Palestine and believe they are entitled to a firm, an independent and a secure state.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not solving the whole problem right now.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Nobody else is, either.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to call the attention of the House to this. We said that the PLO, unfortunately, continues at the present time to include in its covenant or constitution a statement of its basic aims, which includes the liberation of the whole of Palestine as it existed before the surrender of the mandate by Britain, to be secured by a relentless, armed struggle with no compromise. This, I think, constitutes a fundamental commitment to destroy the state of Israel.
In addition to that, it is a fact, whether people like it or not, that the PLO has relied in the past upon terrorist actions directed at innocent people many of whom had no connection whatsoever with Palestine or Israel. We say, if the PLO is willing to indicate that the destruction of Israel, a sovereign independent state recognized by the United Nations, is no longer its objective, and to state it will proceed to seek its aims of an independent Palestine through negotiations, and forgo terrorism, then the situation would change fundamentally and a new approach would be taken.
The government, in these circumstances, has called for the postponement of the United Nations congress on the prevention of crime. Normally we would not applaud the government for postponing it. It is a technique that is too frequently used by this government, and others as well, to push problems under the rug, but in this particular case we believe the decision for postponement was a wise one. We think that to carry on with this congress under the present circumstances in Canada would have done no good to the cause of any of the parties to it, or any of the United

July 21, 1975
Crime Conference
Nations, or of world peace. We think we are wise to say "not under these circumstances", but if a new situation develops, say a year from now, we would take a different attitude to the matter.
I note the reference in the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen)-and this is what we are relying on-that the interim period is to be used for a real effort to solve some of the problems that have existed. There has been too much pushing aside of the problems. We do not delude ourselves that there are any easy solutions, but we do say this year must not be allowed to pass without continued efforts to mobilize world opinion to see if difficulties can be solved by negotiation. With the prospect of war in the Middle East and the possible escalation into world war, there are few other greater threats, to my knowledge, than the present situation in the Middle East. Now we hope we are going to have a breathing spell in which to deal with the matter.
I just want to add that in what we say we are in no way undermining the United Nations. The views of the majority of the General Assembly are, of course, entitled to great respect, but in my view the basic principles of the charter are even more important. They call for the respect and integrity of member nations. Until those who participate in international conferences are willing to accept that principle, international conferences cannot hope to succeed. In our view the United Nations is essential, but we think it is human to err and the UN can, and does, err. We think the time has come for people of good will around the world, and in Canada in particular, to rally behind the UN and show in every way that we propose to support it.
Mr. Speaker, this statement is not clear on what the government would do if the postponement cannot be arranged with the authorities in the United Nations. We in this party want to make it clear that whether the UN agrees or not, this conference should be postponed until the conditions we have suggested, the abandonment of terrorism and the willingness of the PLO to give up its objective of the destruction of the state of Israel, are clearly stated. If this is done, a new situation will arise and a new day of peace may dawn.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I regret not receiving a copy of the minister's statement before three o'clock. Indeed, I did not receive it at all, so that I was unable to examine it.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government was in a way yielding to some pressures coming from a source or another, but especially from one. Postponing that conference will not settle the problem. The minister has clearly indicated that the United Nations were disorganized and increasingly divided.
As a result of the decision to postpone the UN conference on crime prevention which was to take place in Toronto in the near future, there is another problem. What will happen to the conference on human establishments to be held in Vancouver in 1976? We shall be faced again with the same problem. What will happen in the case of the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal? It is always the same thing.

The Canadian government assures us that all security precautions will be taken to guarantee the safety of all 1976 Olympic Games participants. Why not take the same security precautions for the conference which will take place in Toronto two months from now? We wonder why, but the issue has been postponed without being solved in any way.
In my opinion, the real problem between the Arab countries and Israel is that of the Palestinian refugees. That is the bone of contention, and as long as their situation is not settled, we shall have difficulties at every level of the United Nations, whether it be in New York, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal or anywhere in the world. We shall be faced with the same problems, because I think the Arab countries have made up their minds to act through the PLO and succeed where they have failed since 1949.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask some questions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) on this matter, but as he is out of the chamber I guess I will have to direct them to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I was just wondering what representations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Are we not allowed to ask questions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not have in front of me the Standing Order relating to the proposed agreement, but it is my recollection that questions which are to be allowed during this period after a statement on motions are to be directed only to the minister who made the statement, and to no one else.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: What representations, for instance, has the minister received from the Solicitor General about the cancellation? In effect, the government is cancelling a very worth-while conference. Anyone who has had anything to do with it knows it would have been worth-while. I have had a little to do with it for over five years-


An hon. Member:: Question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: What representations has the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) received from law enforcement agencies who have desired a conference of this type for over five years? Also, has he received any vigorous objections about the cancellation from his cabinet colleagues?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I discussed the question of the conference with my colleagues, including the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). Obviously, I am not in a position to tell the hon. member the nature of those conversations, but I tell my hon. friend that the government's action is not a cancellation of the conference. Cancellation would have been the easy way out for the government. It could have washed its hands of the problem. We intend to work in the direction set out in the statement, and supported so well by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). We want to hold a successful conference in Canada when the circumstances will justify the holding of that conference. We are seeking the co-operation of the
July 21, 1975

Secretary General for the holding of the conference later in Canada when circumstances will justify its success.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in respect of this weak-kneed cop-out on the part of the government-


Mr. Sharp:: Look who's talking.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -is the minister telling us that Canada is refusing to host this conference in any circumstances in which a terrorist organization such as the PLO will be admitted? Is that what the minister is telling us? I thought the minister was about to stand up and reply, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What is the question?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question is, will it be a prerequisite of this government that before this country will permit the holding of such a conference, the PLO is not to be admitted to a UN conference in this country on criminology and the rehabilitation of the offender?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot understand the hon. member's position. It seems to be a total reversal of the line he has been putting forward in the House and certainly contradicts the line adopted by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who spoke for the Conservative Party. The hon. member is obsessed with the PLO. He ought to put this conference into a broader international context and understand that we want to host the conference in a successful and favourable political climate. The hon. member should direct questions concerning the admission of the PLO to Canada to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to clarify the situation. We are trying to determine what the minister said. We are dealing with the PLO, notwithstanding the minister's rhetoric, and I want to ask-


Stanley Ronald Basford: He will shoot you down.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister suggests that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) will shoot me down. I will take that chance. Is it the position of the government that the PLO should not be an invited participant to any outside conference sponsored by the United Nations? I think the question is clear and, in view of the minister's statement, deserves an answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. When the question of observer status was placed before the General Assembly, the Government of Canada took a position against the granting of observer status. The United Nations voted overwhelmingly to grant the Palestinian Liberation Organization observer status in the United Nations. Canada is not contesting the result of that decision, although it voted against that position.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if, in his discussions with the Secretary General, the question arose as to what effect the postponement of this conference will have on the UN Conference on Human Settlements, scheduled to be held in Vancouver in 1976?
Crime Conference


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no, that was not discussed directly. Preparations will continue for the UN Conference on Human Settlements which is to be held in Vancouver in 1976. This government will try to create a climate which will also make it possible for the conference on crime prevention to be held in Canada.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and thank him for his kind words? I am always uneasy when I hear kind words from the government front benches. It makes me want to look carefully at the text of what I said. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs received notification from the United Nations, that is, from the Secretary General or other authorities of the United Nations, that Canada's proposal for postponement will be acceptable?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary General undertook to examine the situation with his legal advisers, and I can understand why. The reason is that the General Assembly, through a resolution, decided to hold the conference in Toronto and named Canada as host. Certainly, in my view, Canada has a role to play in this situation, a role which has to be considered. The Secretary General will communicate to me later in the week the result of his legal studies and we will probably discuss a course of action. We can decide whether to raise the matter before the General Assembly and secure a decision in the General Assembly to postpone the conference until a later date, which is one possibility-or it may be possible to seek a view at the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations which is now in session. It may be possible to secure that view at an early date. It seems to me that pending the clarification of the Secretary General, either of these courses might be justified from the legal point of view.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if the government has made up its mind to this effect, that no matter what happens in connection with the United Nations, it will not allow this conference to proceed in Canada at present?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I advised the Secretary General that in our opinion, if the conference were held this year in Canada or elsewhere, it would be bound not to succeed in the way it ought to succeed and that Canada would not be prepared to host the conference this year. We would, however, want to hold our position as host and to discharge our international responsibility when circumstances justify the holding of the conference.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has indicated in his statement that he will travel to the Middle East, to invite the countries of the area, including Israel, to discuss this problem. Could the minister advise the House whether he will take this opportunity to raise the Palestinian refugee issue and try to solve the problem?

July 21, 1975
Crime Conference


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my statement, Canada has contributed very substantially through the years to assistance for the Palestinian refugees. We supported resolution 242 which refers directly to the Palestinians, and recently in my address at the United Nations I developed Canadian policy further with regard to the Palestinian people. We believe that the Palestinian people must be consulted about a settlement in the Middle East and they must be involved in that settlement. With regard to the specific question of assistance, if the hon. member is referring to financial assistance, we have been contributing financial assistance to the relief of the refugees.


Mr. Speaker:: I propose to conclude the questioning with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I am not sure whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) also wants to ask a question.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, there have been reports circulating to the effect that the visit last Friday of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) took place in circumstances of great secrecy, in fact to the extent that the Canadian delegation in New York was not kept informed of the discussions that were taking place. Will the minister assure this House and the country that at least the head of the UN delegation in New York was aware of the nature of the visit and the substance of the discussion that took place there? Otherwise, one is led to the conclusion that the minister is adopting a new form of individual diplomacy whereby he is not keeping the representatives of Canada abroad informed of the nature of some of the discussions that are taking place-a most deplorable development, if that were to be the case.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think I can put at ease the hon. member's concerns. The Canadian representative to the United Nations, Mr. Rae, was on leave on the occasion of my visit. The arrangements for the visit were laid on by his immediate subordinate, his second in command, who was not present with me when I spoke to the Secretary General, nor were any other officials present. However, he was fully informed as to the substance of the conversation. So that the mission in New York was fully informed about the visit, set it up and was informed as to the substance of the discussion.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Speaker, at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva in March and April, 1975, the PLO did not attend although they had observer status. Did the Canadian government determine whether the PLO would in fact attend the conference in Toronto before this announcement was made?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that the representatives of the PLO at the United Nations had had consultations with the UN secretariat as to the composition of the delegation that would attend the conference

in Toronto. It is my information that the PLO intended to exercise its status at the crime prevention conference.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that he is looking for a change in conditions or climate for the holding of the conference. Will he specify what he wishes to see changed, in terms of the PLO attitude toward Israel, which would perhaps create that kind of climate? Second, will he indicate whether we can expect a definitive decision with regard to Habitat in Vancouver, in terms of the holding of that conference and where exactly the same conditions will apparently prevail unless there is a change in the so-called climate to which the minister refers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there are two broad conditions which would indicate an easing of the situation that caused us to seek a postponement of this conference. One is the extreme intrusion of unrelated political discussions into what ought to be technical conferences. Mind you, certain of the developing countries feel that these political matters ought to be discussed. It is our view that they ought not to intrude into what are technical conferences. We had a recent example at the conference in Mexico, which in my opinion was damaged because of unrelated political issues entering the discussion. We hope to make some progress in establishing ground rules against the politicization of these conferences. That is one situation.
The other is the expectation that in the meantime there will be a reduction in tensions in the Middle East and that the present unfavourable climate will, if not disappear, be reduced. For example, successful partial negotiations which Secretary Kissinger is presently working on would be a significant development. However, who can predict the future? It is possible that the Geneva talks will be held, the status of the PLO will finally be resolved and we can look to a generally more favourable situation in the Middle East. That is what Canada will be working to achieve in the intervening period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) indicated to the Secretary General of the United Nations that Canada is not prepared to be host of this conference for the time being, and sought the co-operation of the Secretary General in obtaining a postponement by the United Nations. Does he intend to give the impression to the House that, provided he finds he has the legal authority, it is the view of the Secretary General that the conference ought to be postponed, and that he will postpone the conference long enough to meet the request of Canada? Also, will the minister indicate whether Canada is prepared to take this question of postponement to the United Nations, in the event that it is considered necessary, following the legal advice which the Secretary General of the United Nations receives?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, the Secretary General undertook to study the situation and to be in touch with me, hopefully this week. He did not commit himself to any particular course of action. I indicated to him that I intended to advise the House that I sought his co-operation in postponing the conference. He agreed to that formulation of words. I am
July 21, 1975

hopeful that a postponement is possible. I did not think the atmosphere was hostile to that possibility but I cannot be sure whether that will be the final outcome or that the Secretary General will want to take a decision on that.
If it is legally open to Canada, as I think it may be, to raise the matter either at the Economic and Social Council or at the General Assembly, I will be prepared to do so in order to hold on to the possibility of the hostmanship of this conference and to indicate that as a country we want to discharge our international responsibilities in circumstances which would permit us to achieve some success. If that course of action were taken, as I think it ought to be, it would be up to member countries to say whether they agreed with us to hold it in more favourable circumstances.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope our friends do not abstain.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a more clearcut issue than most.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS BILL
Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-72, to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House on Friday, July 18, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the province of Newfoundland in which the petitioners request that the government take unilateral action to protect Canadian marine resources out to the edge of the continental shelf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion to Adjourn


Walter C. Carter: I might add that the petition is signed by the Premier of the province, the Hon. Frank D. Moores, by the leader of the official opposition in the Newfoundland legislature, Mr. Ed. Roberts, the leader of the recently formed Liberal Reform Party, the Hon. J. R. Smallwood, and by the president of the Newfoundland Fishermen's and Allied Workers' Union, Mr. Richard Cashin, a former member of this House. I might also say that to get those four gentlemen to agree with each other long enough to put their names on a single piece of paper is in itself quite a feat, and parliament should recognize that fact by their congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House is prepared to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) by receiving the petition.


Walter C. Carter: Would Your Honour allow me to state the number of people who signed the petition? It is in excess of 100,000.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   FISHERIES ALLEGED REFUSAL OF GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF

Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the refusal of the government to take any firm action, including unilateral action, to protect Canadian resources to the edge of our continental shelf against the plundering of foreign nationals operating off our coasts.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order, the hon. member has been good enough to give the Chair notice of his intention to bring forward this emergency motion. He will be aware, as will all hon. members, that the subject which is the content of the motion is one which has been debated a number of times since he and I became colleagues in the House of Commons and, I presume, for many years before that. It has been the subject of considerable debate, difficulty and disagreement. There has been discussion about the acceptability of different limits. The matter has been the subject of controversy at several Law of the Sea conferences. It is one of great importance and concern, but because of its continuing nature, its complexity and the extent to which it has been discussed in this House and by other distinguished bodies, I would have to consider it one which cannot be the subject of a motion at this time under Standing Order 26.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
July 21, 1975

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 32, 1,838, 2,504, 2,520, 2,575, 2,592, 2,595, 2,790, 2,794, 2,806, 2,865, and 2,866.
If question No. 2,695 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In regard to the trip by the Prime Minister commencing April 25, 1974 to certain places in Ontario including the Ontario Liberal Party annual meeting in Sudbury (a) what specific government aircraft were used for any aspects of transportation and, in each case, what is the cost per hour of keeping such an aircraft in the air including fuel, salaries and all other factors (b) where did each flight begin and terminate and what are the names and functions of all persons who travelled in the plane carrying the Prime Minister and in any other accompanying government-owned aircraft?
2.	Will the Prime Minister discontinue using government-owned aircraft at public expense for purposes of political or personal travel and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence, Transport and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned: 1. (a) Three CH 135 utility helicopters were used at a cost of $415. per flying hour per helicopter including fuel, salaries and all other factors, (b) The schedule to various localities in Ontario was as follows:
Leave	Arrive
Ottawa	25 Apr.	9.15 a.m.	Toronto	11.20 a.m.Toronto	25 Apr.	4.23 p.m.	Hamilton	5.20 p.m.Hamilton	25 Apr.	10.00 p.m.	Toronto	22.40 p.m.Toronto	26 Apr.	1.15 p.m.	Woodstock	3.35 p.m.Woodstock 26 Apr.	4.10 p.m.	Sarnia	5.05 p.m.Sarnia	26 Apr.	5.55 p.m.	Toronto	8.00 p.m.Toronto	27 Apr.	10.00 a.m.	Ottawa	12.05 p.m.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: 1. (a) Viscount CF-GXK. Cost, $750 per hour.
(b) Originated
Ottawa
Hamilton
Toronto
Sarnia
Sudbury

Terminated
Hamilton
Toronto
Sarnia
Sudbury
Ottawa.
In so far as the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices are concerned: 1. (b) The Prime Minister, appropriate staff and press.
2.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) The Prime Minister travels in government owned aircraft as a matter of policy in order to minimize inconvenience to the travelling public and for security reasons.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the government House Leader discussed recently with the Leader or House Leader from a minority Opposition Party the possibility of introducing legislation to ensure the same degree of Canadian autonomy in union control that has been sought in resource development and, if so, with whom and on what date?
2.	Is the government studying the alleged intervention by the US parent in the United Aircraft labour dispute?
3.	Is the government studying the alleged intervention by the US controlled international union in the Mount Wright labour dispute?
4.	To what extent, if any, has the operation of Canada manpower centres been circumvented by the employers or employees in the disputes?
5.	Is a suitably qualified unemployed person disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits for refusing to accept employment opportunities in companies and on sites where there is an existing labour dispute?
6.	(a) To what extent does provincial legislation render inoperative, in whole or in part, the federal regulations to unemployed persons (b) is any new federal legislation in this field presently under consideration?
7.	Does the government intend to prevent any foreign intervention in the sale of Canadian exports?
8.	Does the government intend to prevent any foreign intervention in the construction, organization and administration of Canadian labour unions?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Labour, Manpower and Immigration, Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. Discussions between House Leaders have always been considered to be confidential and it is therefore not possible to answer this question.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	It is not possible to say whether either the employers or the employees have circumvented the operations of the Canada Manpower Centres as there is no requirement for them to utilize the services of the department. The policy of the department in industrial disputes is as follows: The Department maintains a neutral position in respect to a labour dispute; the employment services of the department are available to both employer and employees should they wish to use them; the department will accept orders for workers from an employer and will offer a referral to prospective workers informing them, both orally and in writing, of the existence of the dispute; the worker is free to accept or refuse the referral in question.
5.	In accordance with Section 40(2)(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act an employee would not be disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits for refusing to accept employment opportunities in companies and on sites where there is a labour dispute. 40(2)(a)-For the purpose of this section, employment is not suitable
July 21, 1975

employment for a claimant if it is (a) employment arising in consequence of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute.
6.	(a) The subject of Unemployment Insurance is expressely within the competence of the federal parliament in accordance with the amended provision 2A of Section 91 of the British North America Act, which amendment was passed in 1940. In consequence, provincial legislation may not render inoperative in whole or in part the federal regulations to unemployed persons, (b) Any new legislation proposed will be announced in the House at the appropriate time.
7.	The simple answer to the question is, yes. The government on a continuous basis seeks the removal of impedie-ments to Canadian export trade. Foreign intervention in the sale of Canadian exports may take a variety of forms. For example, foreign-controlled companies in Canada sometimes fall under the influence of foreign legislation restricting international trade or are restricted by parent companies from engaging in certain export trade. To deal with this kind of situation, the government has proposed certain amendments to the Combines Investigation Act to provide a legal basis to direct Canadian companies not to take decisions which would adversely affect Canada's external trade as a result of foreign laws or of directives from persons outside Canada.
8.	Policies of trade unions in Canada, including questions relating to their national or international affiliations, are determined by procedures internal to the unions concerned as detailed in their constitutions and/or by-laws.
Order Paper Questions
Notre Dame du
Nord	Quinze River Bridge	1,190,402Rouyn	New Federal Building	415,615
U.I.C.-Building-Alterations
and Improvements	125,441
St. Eugene-de-
Guiges	Wharf and Launching Ramp	6,206
Temiscamingue Post Office	90,239
Dam-Stop Logs	11,478
Road Widening	300,723
Ville Marie	Post Office	238,155
Total	$ 2,443,105
Expenditures in excess of those detailed above were for the routine operation and maintenance of existing buildings and facilities.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of May 15, 1975, how many persons were hired (a) through the Public Service Commission (b) under contract by the Department of the Environment for duties relating primarily to the (i) implementation (ii) administration of the proposed Ocean Dumping Act?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the original employment or commencement of contract?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	In the past ten years, what was the total expenditures of the Department of Public Works in the Constituency of Temiscamingue?
2.	What was the nature of the projects and the amounts spent on each?


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Public Works 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. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Expenditures for past seven years available only:
Fiscal year
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75 Total
Expenditure $	373,642
290,500 345,652 648,513 1,777,178 442,302 737,196 $ 4,614,983
2. Expenditures on capital projects over the seven-year period were as follows:
Location
Anglier
Noranda
Description Post Office
Quinze Dam Renovation Air Conditioning and Extension to Mail Lobby
Amount $	29,933
10,000
24,913


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The
total budget for Language Administration in Public Works is $533,000 of which $252,000 is specifically allocated for internal language training.
2. (a) Figures are not available for salaries of personnel receiving instruction, (b) Salaries of instructional staff are covered under item "c" following, (c) $252,000 for supplementary services purchased from the PSC. (d) No other costs.


Mr. Brisco: Is there any department that provides grants or loans for (a) the construction of a community-owned TV cable system (b) the construction of community-owned TV towers for TV signal pickup and, if so, which one?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.

July 21, 1975
Order Paper Questions PRISON INDUSTRIES PROGRAMME


Mr. Beatty: 1.	With reference to the fact sheet of the Department of the Solicitor General dated May 1, 1975 and sent to all Members of Parliament and Senators (a) how many inmates are currently employed in the prison industries programme (b) what is their wage scale at the present time (c) when is it expected to reach the minimum wage level (d) how much are the participating inmates being charged for their lodging?
2.	What is the maximum sentence still remaining to be served by each participating inmate?
3.	(a) How does an inmate who is still in the prison become unemployed (b) how does he become eligible for collecting benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Programme into which he is making contributions?
4.	In times of high unemployment, are area residents who are not inmates given the opportunity to apply for similar jobs at the prison at the same pay scale as the prisoners and, if so, is the hiring priority given to an unemployed person from the surrounding community or to a prisoner?
5.	What plans is the government considering for the expansion of this programme?


William Warren Allmand: 1. (a) (b)
(c) (d)-The new prison industries program referred to in the fact sheet of the Ministry of the Solicitor General dated May 1, 1975 is expected to commence operating in April, 1976. The inmates currently employed in the present industries program number approximately 1,650. The new prison industries program will operate at first on an experimental basis at the Joyceville Institution in Ontario and is likely to employ approximately 80 inmates. The daily rate of pay paid to the 1,650 inmates employed in the present program varies from 70 cents per day to $1,000 per day. The new prison industries program will provide for a pay scale commencing at approximately 60 cents per hour and gradually progress up to the federal minimum wage of $2.20 per hour. The increases in hourly rate will be based on the inmate's performance and production at work. A final decision has not been reached as to the percentage of salary earned to be charged to the participating inmates for their lodgings. However it is expected that this percentage will vary from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the salary earned.
2.	The maximum sentence still remaining to be served by each participating inmate will be one of the various factors to be considered by the Work Board of the institution before an inmate is allowed to participate. The total sentence of the participant may vary from two years to life.
3.	(a) An inmate still in prison participating in this new Prison Industries Program will become unemployed upon transfer from the Joyceville Institution or for such reasons as insubordination, refusal to work, inability to produce in accordance with quality standards, etc. (b) Such an inmate will only become eligible for collecting benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Program upon legal release from penitentiary and if he meets the requirements set by the Unemployment Insurance Act for drawing such benefits.
4.	No. This program is being developed specifically with the aim of resocializing inmates.
5.	This new Prison Industries Program pilot project will be operated for a period of two years and be evaluated at that time to establish its rate of success before any expan-

sion program is undertaken. Assuming that success is achieved through this experiment, favourable consideration will then be given to its gradual expansion throughout those Penitentiary Service institutions where industrial programs are in effect.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,666 which stated in part that the National Capital Commission spent $4,646 for "supplies" at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive during 1973-74, what is a complete list of all items making up this total along with the cost in each case?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The National Capital Commission spent $4,646.03 for supplies at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive, during 1973-74 for the following items: Tubing, Pipe, Flat Iron, Welding Rods, $2,024.22; Paint and Paint Brushes, $24.48; Gloves and Goggles, $20.93; Chalk Line and Markers, $5.75; Tools, $66.00; Oxygen and Acetylene, $124.62; Pickets, $17.40; Post Caps, $45.36; Concrete, Crushed Stone, Black Sand, $574.75; Flowers, Shrubs, $1,279.00; Trees, $89.00; Wheelbarrow, $44.01; Gasoline, $29.33; Fertilizer, $281.46; Ice Melting Pellets, $18.72.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,667 which stated in part that the National Capital Commission spent $5,896 for "supplies" at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive during 1974-75, what is a complete list of all items making up this total along with the cost in each case?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The National Capital Commission spent $5,895.79 for supplies at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive, during 1974-75 for the following items: Fertilizer, $232.40; Janitorial Supplies, $110.24; Gasoline, $66.94; Flowers, $3,428.00; Paint Supplies, $55.89; Building Supplies (wood), $49.15; Electrical Supplies, $24.28; Fire Extinguisher, $34.23; Snow Scrapers, $39.60; Weed Killer, $75.90; File Records (Stationary), $23.70; Shears, $25.58; Peat Moss, $103.50; Granite Sets, $1,598.30; Clay Pots, $28.08.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the government requested a comparison of or is it considering studying the differences and relative merits of the provincial educational systems?
2.	Are comparative provincial educational standards necessary for efficient placement service by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Secretary of State and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. No.
2. No. Although such information might conceivably facilitate the mobility of workers inter-provincially, there
July 21, 1975

is no evidence to suggest that this would be a factor for an efficient placement service by the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Brisco: Is the level of meteorological training of designated CATA personnel consistent with current AES presentation standards at stations where CATA personnel have replaced AES staff or are working with AES staff?


Len Marchand: CATA personnel are not working with AES presentation staff nor have they replaced AES presentation staff.


Mr. Brisco: At how many airports in Canada were AES presentation technicians replaced by Aeradio operators?


Len Marchand: None.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Elzinga: 1.	How much in contract amounts did the Department of Supply and Services spend in each province or territory in (a) 1968 (b) 1969 (c) 1970 (d) 1971 (e) 1972 (f) 1973 (g) 1974?
2.	What was the budget in contract amounts for the Department of Supply and Services for (a) 1968 (b) 1969 (c) 1970 (d) 1971 (e) 1972 (f) 1973 (g) 1974 and what percentage of the budget for each year was spent in each province or territory?
3.	What percentage of the Canadian population lived in each province or territory in (a) 1968 (b) 1969 (c) 1970 (d) 1971 (e) 1972 (f) 1973 (g) 1974?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-70, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Public Service


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, I rise on third reading to indicate the general acceptance of our party for this important measure. It is, however, an interim measure and the agreement of our party is of an interim nature without prejudice to our position on the final report of the committee which is now studying this matter.
During the various weekends that I am able to spend in my constituency I am finding more and more objections to, and reservations about, the manner in which staff relations in the public service are being regulated. People are fed up with strikes, for example. They are fed up with hold-ups in the mail. There is not a great deal of information that reaches the public in this area except when there is a breakdown of negotiations. This is most unfortunate.
Clearly, one reason for disruptions in the service that the public service is paid to provide, particularly when negotiations for a new contract with Treasury Board are under way, is the failure of the Public Service Staff Relations Board as presently constituted to meet in full the various tasks assigned to it. We have heard from the chairman of that board, an eminent lawyer and specialist in the field of labour relations, Mr. Jacob Finkelman, how the board has found it impossible to resolve employer-employee problems given the present structure of the board.
The board has a number of functions, among the most important of which is to provide rulings on matters that come into dispute between negotiating parties, such as matters of designating confidential exclusion, judgments relating to alleged illegal actions by unions or by management in connection with strikes and lock-outs, and also individual cases in the same areas. There is a further function of arranging, though not necessarily providing, for conciliation and arbitration as required. The calls upon the board have been multiple in the course of time since the board was first instituted in 1957. Mr. Finkelman has drawn to the attention of the special committee that was struck to examine the whole matter just how difficult it is, with a board constituted on a part-time basis, to deal with these many problems.
There was lengthy and amicable discussion in committee since all members of the House, I am happy to say, took a deep interest in the matter and are anxious that the service be provided to the Canadian public in the best manner possible. I pay tribute to all members for their participation and their keenness in questioning; it has been, I think, an exciting and profitable exercise.
However, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, operating on a part-time basis and coming together at the call of the chair once every two or three weeks, say, cannot possibly deal with the dockets before it. For this reason, on hearing the submission of Mr. Finkelman, chairman of the board, the committee decided to ask parliament, on an interim basis, to provide the board with a more permanent status so it could meet regularly, discharge the dockets before it and thereby meet the tasks assigned to it.

July 21, 1975
Public Service
On many occasions the accusation has been made that Treasury Board refuses to negotiate in good faith. This may or may not be. Sometimes it is possibly true; on other occasions it could not be the case. But if the failure of the Public Service Staff Relations Board contributes to this situation because the board is unable to resolve some of the matters before it, thereby preventing one or other of the negotiating parties from coming to terms, then I think it is up to us in this parliament to repair this defect in the PSSRB by giving it the status of permanence and providing it with the equipment to meet its assigned tasks. But again I underline that this is without prejudice to what the special committee should finally decide to do about the whole problem of collective bargaining in the public service.
During the committee proceedings, I contended-and I devoted some time to this also in the House during the budget debate-that somehow or other the public interest must be more deeply involved or vocalized, more deeply articulated, in the negotiation procedure in the public service. After all, in the final analysis it is the public that is the employer. There is a surrogate employer at the moment in the form of Treasury Board, or Treasury Board specialists, but in the final analysis the public is the employer. It pays for the service, it expects the service, and it becomes very annoyed when it does not get the service.
It is my impression that in the special committee in which I participated, that element has not been, yet, fully dealt with. We have not managed, for one reason or another, to ensure that the public interest is fully represented at the bargaining table, as one might say in shorthand. There are not even any proposals before the committee to deal with this question; we are still dealing with it in terms of the present structure-repairing here, making amendments there.
It is my firm intention to make sure that everything is done so that the public is more deeply represented in the negotiating procedures. Any measures or legislative provisions to accomplish that purpose which might run contrary to the legislation now before us will, of course, have to supersede this legislation. That is why I said at the beginning that this is an interim measure. The party to which I belong approves the measure that is being brought forward as an interim measure, conditionally; subject and without prejudice to any further and different sorts of measures that may have to come forward ultimately to deal with this problem.
There is little more that needs to be said at this time, Mr. Speaker. The chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board has urged the committee, with all the power in his body, to come forward with some interim relief for the heavy burden now facing the PSSRB, and the measure that was agreed upon in the report and which has now come forward in legislative form will certainly provide that. With the reservations I have already made, I wish to indicate the approval of my party for this measure.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in earlier speeches made on the subject of this bill, members of the New Democratic Party have made it clear

that we support the purpose of this legislation. The bill would restructure the Public Service Staff Relations Board so that it can cope more adequately with the pile-up of disputes, certifications and adjudication of problems. We support a measure that would tend to ameliorate this build-up.
However, the act being amended by this bill deals with the very important question of the collective bargaining rights of civil servants. Indeed, the Public Service Staff Relations Board itself is inextricably involved in a current and symbolically important dispute which I should like to take a few minutes to discuss this afternoon, namely, the suspension of Mr. Arthur Stewart, president of the 8,000-member Supply and Services union. Mr. Stewart is an elected head of a union representing a significant number of civil servants. I wish to spend a few minutes on this important case because crucial questions of principle have been raised on the matter by the minister who is directly responsible, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I hope at the conclusion of my remarks, which deliberately will be kept brief, the minister responsible for this bill will reply and make clear what I consider to be the ambiguous position of the government in respect of the rights of civil servants arising from the Arthur Stewart case. Mr. Stewart, Mr. Speaker and members of the House will recall, was suspended for making certain public criticisms of the department in which he worked, the Department of Supply and Services. While he worked in that department he was also the head of a union.
The public criticism that Mr. Stewart made of his department can be broken into two elements. One is that he was critical of the labour relations which existed within the department and which currently exist within the department. The other is that he criticized the hiring within the department of too many senior management people. In his public criticism which took the form of an article published by the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. Stewart did reach explicit connections between what he regarded as faulty labour relations, on the one hand, and inappropriate hiring of too many management personnel, on the other, and the minister. In other words, there was an explicit connection made by Mr. Stewart between what he considered bad administration by the department and the minister's responsibility.
I wish to make essentially two points on this. First, the kind of public criticisms made by Mr. Stewart of his department were essentially administrative in nature. That seems to me to be of fundamental importance in this case. Second, such criticisms made by Mr. Stewart, as a trade union representative, ought not only to be his right but also his obligation if he is effectively to do his job as a representative of the working people in that department. If that is the case, then what possible justification could there be for his suspension?
He was suspended for three months without pay. That constitutes a reduction of his income by 25 per cent for one year. It is not a trivial matter in terms of his personal subsistence, but quite apart from that an important matter of principle is at stake here. What grounds would justify Mr. Stewart's suspension? One which we must reject outright, of course, is that attributed to the Minister of
July 21, 1975

Supply and Services who was quoted by the press as saying he would be prepared to accept criticism from his peers but not from an employee. That kind of position, I hope, would not be accepted by members of any party on either side of the House. I would hope that upon reflection the Minister of Supply and Services would agree that he overstated his case. Certainly I hope it is an overstatement for a minister of the Crown to say that no form of criticism is to be justified except from his peers.
A different kind of justification was offered for the suspension of Mr. Stewart by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister prefaced his comment in the House, in reply to the questions put by me last week, by saying that he did not have the details of the case. However, not having the details of the case did not prohibit his reaching what he regards as a profound conclusion. He went on to say that he shared the minister's judgment that Mr. Stewart ought to have been suspended because he was making political criticism. If hon. members would check Hansard, they would find that the Prime Minister took that position. When pursued, in subsequent question periods, by myself about what is the definition of "political criticism", the Prime Minister offered no answer, relying-as he does quite frequently-on rhetorical responses in an effort to deal with the issue by not facing it at all.
I say, in all seriousness, that the issue is of great importance. If the Prime Minister is to say that the kind of criticism made by Mr. Stewart as a trade union official of the department constitutes political criticism, the only conclusion one can draw from that is that any criticism made by an employee or trade union official would constitute political criticism. If a trade unionist criticizes the internal functioning of a department on an administrative basis, as was done by Mr. Stewart-which has been said by the Prime Minister to be political-then I suggest that, surely, criticism about wage levels within a department in the course of bargaining in private or in public would also be political criticism. Questions about the number of hours of work within a department would also constitute political criticism. A member opposite says that is nonsense. I should like to ask him why it is nonsense.
The negotiators for the packinghouse workers, for the steelworkers and for the UAW, to name three unions in Canada, do not hesitate to criticize the internal administrative operations of corporations with whom they are negotiating, because when speaking for the employees they represent-whether in corporations or departments- union members have a legitimate interest in the whole functioning of either the private corporation or the government department. They feel as employees they have a basic obligation to make suggestions about improvements in a firm or department. Surely, since we permit such rights, without anyone seriously questioning them, to exist for trade union people in the private sector, we should permit them as well in the public sector for a representative of the employees to speak on their behalf and to make internal criticisms.
The second reason, apart from trying to improve the functioning of the private corporation or the internal operations of the department, is the more immediate point which is made frequently, that if you administer your
Public Service
department better, as a result you can perhaps get better pay for your employees. It is not an entirely unique situation for trade union negotiators to suggest that by clearing management waste a company will be able to pay employees a little better. That is another purpose for making the kind of criticism that Mr. Stewart made of the Minister of Supply and Services. Again, I would like to know why that should be stopped and why not only Mr. Stewart but now, by implication, any union official in the civil service will be curtailed in making such statements.
I say that if that is the position of the government, then what this case amounts to is a significant intimidation of all civil servants employed by the federal government, because what the federal government is saying is that if you have an effective spokesman representing you and making criticisms of the department, then that spokesman runs the very serious risk of losing his job, or at least of losing it for a good part of the year. How could you develop a more inhibiting kind of procedure than to tell the people who are negotiating with the government that if they get tough with their negotiations, if they are really serious about them, they may lose their jobs? I hope that the Prime Minister simply overstated his case, as he does on occasion in the House in reply to questions, and that in the final analysis he does not regard the kind of criticism made by Mr. Stewart as the kind that warrants a suspension. I would like to hear the minister clarify that situation this afternoon in winding up the debate on this bill which, as I said earlier, we support.
I think it is of basic importance that the people elected by the civil servants of Canada to represent them should be free, in terms of the range of topics they can raise in criticism of the minister heading the department or officials working under that minister. To restrict their freedom of action along the lines stated by the Minister of Supply and Services, and along the even broader lines indicated by the Prime Minister, will seriously inhibit their effectiveness in terms of doing the job for which they were elected by the civil servants, namely, good bargaining with the government.
Before I sit down I want to point out, as I did in the question period, that even if one allows, as I do not, that the kind of criticism made by Mr. Stewart is political, surely the punishment handed out by the government is away out of line in terms of what would be justified by any sense of decency or equity. Just compare the situation of Mr. Stewart with that of Admiral Boyle in the navy on the east coast of Canada when he spoke to the Conservative Party caucus on the defence policy. As an admiral in the navy, he spoke to a political party in explicit criticism of the government's policy. Nothing could be more political than the kind of statement that Admiral Boyle made, and nothing could be more appropriate than the government's response, which was to point out that no admiral or other official of the Department of National Defence should have the right publicly to criticize the defence policy of the Crown.
I agreed with the government's position in that instance and I agree that policy statements constitute political criticism. But compare the punishment handed out to Admiral Boyle with that handed out to Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart, a man with considerably less income and consid-

July 21, 1975
Public Service
erably less influence in the government, is suspended for three months, with loss of income, while Admiral Boyle- who makes explicit political criticism-is brought to Ottawa for a little chit-chat with the minister. As the minister pointed out, no doubt his actions were wrong. But that is all that was done. He was sent back to the east coast and told not to speak to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and those Conservative fellows again in that way, because it was out of order for an admiral in the Canadian navy to so act. We agree with that, but what we do not agree with is a government that interprets the administrative criticism of another employee as a political act and then takes away that man's income for three months.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I want to correct what the hon. member said about me with regard to Admiral Boyle. I want to tell the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I was not present and that I would never allow an admiral to criticize the government or the Prime Minister.


John Edward Broadbent: I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition and accept his word. I just thought he was present at that harmonious meeting of his caucus colleagues. I accept his point that he was absent on that occasion. However, with regard to the point I was making about the inappropriateness of the admiral's comments at the time, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition shares my point entirely.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on this matter. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) spoke about the situation with regard to the criticism of the government by a civil servant, a matter which was first raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I intervened, in the form of a question supplementary to those asked by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Because this is a subject in which I am quite interested, and because we are wrestling with this sort of thing in a joint committee at present, I want to say that there are, obviously, certain areas where those who are advisers to the government and in close contact with it must have some inhibition with regard to their open criticism, though I do not think we need to define them at this time.
However, I want to say that one of the reasons civil servants of this government are driven, from time to time, to indulge in open criticism, and occasionally to see that documents within the possession of the departments are sometimes provided surreptitiously to the press and to the public, is the inherent penchant of this government for obsessive secrecy.
The test is when a civil servant sees that if the document or the information which is essential to be released for the good of the public, for the welfare of the country and for the good of parliament, is released, he or she would be in a difficult position. True enough, his responsibility as a civil servant may compel him to say to himself that he should not do this, but as a citizen of this country he has a certain responsibility with regard to the decisions which are made in parliament and to information which should come to the public. I think that is the kind of test where at present, unfortunately, civil servants are limited.

I know that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp)-and I give him and members of the committee credit for it-seems to have some knowledge of that. They have not gone as far as I want them to go. It may well be that they may go further. But the document I asked about today, concerning a very important issue, is one which the country and parliament should have had provided for it when we were involved in the debates last winter in connection with energy matters.
According to the press, we now find that there was in the possession of the government six or seven months ago a document with regard to the very critical situation in the supply and the potential supply of natural gas. That information, if it was in the possession of the government-and that has not been denied today-should have been made public and should have been made available to members of this House for the purpose of the debate which was then taking place. If it was as essential as I deem it could have been, it may well be that a civil servant, despite his relationship with the government, might have been justified in releasing it.
My seatmate once had the honour to be premier of the province of Nova Scotia, and the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was once premier of the province of Saskatchewan. I imagine they must have had certain rules with regard to information; no government can operate on the basis that everything which comes into the possession of a civil servant must be released. The case of Mr. Stewart has been referred to by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. It forcibly points out the need to engage in the adoption of certain rules which will probably make it unnecessary for that kind of action to be repeated.
Some hon. members may have been observing the very interesting case in the United Kingdom where the diaries of the late Richard Crossman are now the subject of legal action. The late Mr. Crossman, a very distinguished member of the Labour cabinet whom I had the pleasure of meeting both here and in the United Kingdom, who was also Lord Privy Seal, government House leader and quite a scholar, left diaries with regard to his operations within the Labour Party and the Labour government. I think those diaries were vetted, so far as matters of national security were concerned and those parts which were sensitive within the public domain, and about a quarter of the diaries was published in the London Times.
There was then a proposal to publish them in book form, but the prime minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, the leader of the socialist Labour Party in the United Kingdom, issued instructions to his attorney general, Mr. Silkin, to secure an injunction prohibiting the publication of those papers on the ground that they were inimical to the public interest. As a matter of fact, knowledgeable journalists and political scientists who observed the material in those documents have come to the conclusion that they simply showed ordinary, fallible men making grievous errors and operating in darkness or near darkness in connection with the affairs of government.
They also showed that in many respects the affairs of the country were being run by senior civil servants and
July 21, 1975

that the members of the Labour cabinet only gave their consent to proposals brought to them. I am not going to deal with that matter because I hope it will come up in subsequent debates, but I point it out to indicate to this House that, hopefully, this fall we may have an opportunity to discuss the extent to which material within the possession of a government should be kept secret or should be made public. If the House, as I hope it will, comes to the right decision, then we will find that it will not be necessary for people like Mr. Stewart, who obviously felt he was fulfilling a public obligation by making known these facts, to be faced with the very difficult decision which he had to make in this regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) seeking the floor in this debate?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of my rights. I do not know whether I have the opportunity of speaking. I think it can only be done with general consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The minister is seeking consent to speak at third reading. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the work of the joint committee which considered this bill and which originally made the recommendations upon which it is based. Several hon. members have commended the work of that committee. I had the privilege of appearing before it as a witness, and there I found a spirit of co-operation which I wish prevailed more generally in this House. It has done a commendable piece of work. I hope the committee will continue its work and that in due course we will have a report on the more substantive matters which are before it.
It seems to me that most of the debate on third reading has been a little irrelevant to the bill itself. However, let me make some brief comments on the speeches made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). If I may begin with my friend the Conservative House leader, he and I have had many discussions about the question of secrecy in government. I do not quite know how it got into this debate, but here it is. I speak now not only as a minister and a member of parliament but as a former civil servant who saw the problem from the other side.
Some hon. members may recall that I was the centre of a controversy about the publication of a government document of which I happened to be the signatory, namely, the famous hidden report which the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) brandished about the country in the general election of 1958.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is what got you into politics.


Mitchell William Sharp: At one time I said that the right hon. member for Prince Albert turned me into a national figure without any effort on my part whatsoever. It seems to me that when we get into this area of the relationship among civil servants, the government and the public, we are into an area which has to be handled with infinite care. There
Excise Tax Act
may have been occasions when I was a senior civil servant working for both Liberal and Conservative administrations when I might have been very critical. However, I did not think I had any right to engage in political controversy by criticizing the government of the day. I believe this is the only valid principle. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby seems to question this principle. I have looked at the article signed by Mr. Stewart and I think one would have to take a rather charitable view of what he said to say that he was not making political comments. I know that is a very difficult line to have to draw, but I suggest it would be better if the line were drawn on the side of avoiding political controversy.
I would draw to the attention of the House what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on July 16, at page 7619 of Hansard:
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.
The Prime Minister was making a distinction between criticism which was in pursuit of the interests of the employees of the government, their working conditions, their wages and all the other things about which they might bargain, but I suggest to my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby that Mr. Stewart seemed to me to have overstepped this line.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 7416).
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in supporting our amendment that this bill be not now read the second time, I am pleased to do so to emphasize that there are many good reasons for making this very reasonable suggestion. The measures contained in Bill C-66 are, for the most part, poorly advised. They are not going to do the job and have the economic results that the minister anticipated. For the most part, I fail to see the urgency that the government has particularly emphasized lately, because it may very well be that section 17 of the Financial Administration Act would make the part of the legislation relating to the rebate provision irrelevant. The relevant section reads:

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
The governor in council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, whenever he considers it in the public interest, may remit any tax, fee or penalty.
It may be argued that this only applies to taxes which are in place but I suggest, with deference, that if there is no tax legislation in place, then there is a very good argument to be made that you do not need a bill to authorize the rebate in these circumstances either. Even though the measures contained in Bill C-66 result from the budget, they ought not to be proceeded with too quickly- particularly the ten-cent tax on gasoline-until proper administrative procedures for processing the tax are put in place.
It would have been preferable if the minister had made arrangements-even if there had to be lengthy discussions beforehand to make this more practicable-to withhold the imposition of this tax until parliament had given its sanction. I realize there are some difficulties in this suggestion, but it worries me, as a member, to see another situation where the people of Canada are faced with a very regressive tax being collected without the legislative sanction of the House of Commons. I think this is a very poor precedent. If the principle were extended to the point where the omnibus bill which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) intends to bring in with regard to criminal law were to be enforced now, and we were asked as members to approve it later, there would be a great outcry in the country. I think you can draw a fair analogy between what the Parliament of Canada is being asked to do here and what could be the case in the future if this sort of thing were allowed to continue.
I should like to say a few things with reference to the proposed increase in the air transportation tax and come back to the famous, or infamous ten-cent tax in a few moments. The proposed increase in the air transportation tax is another regressive and counterproductive move. No less a person than the president of the Air Transport Association of Canada recently had this to say:
Members of our association, travel agents and charters are concerned about the application of the increased rate for air transportation tax effective August 1 if it will require adjustment and collections from travellers who have bought air transportation before the first of August.
Here is another unfortunate complication from proceeding in this precipitous way. He continued:
Such adjustments and collections at airports at time of departure during the heavy travel season would be irritating, disruptive and lead to serious criticism of the agents, carriers and government.
The minister proposed to raise the air transportation tax limits substantially from the levels imposed by the existing legislation, that is clear. I understand this increase is designed to generate another $16 million of revenue in this fiscal year, added to a ticket tax revenue take of $53 million, so that this would amount to a total annual revenue of approximately $69 million.
Far better for the government, in the name of restraint, to have cut back on some of the gigantic sums which have been appropriated for airport expansion, such as Pickering, which the majority of the people affected do not want, and Mirabel which does not, as yet, have the proper supporting infrastructure. It therefore could very easily have some of its budgetary appropriations deferred until such time as the lack of adequate road infrastructure is over-

come, particularly since knowledgeable people are well aware that the airport at Dorval has not yet been used to its full potential. The lack of adequate road infrastructure is nothing short of a catastrophe. Quebec has been delaying the road service due to a siphoning of funds to buttress the Olympics. Ottawa did a poor job of future planning and should have anticipated what was likely to happen.
Weekend flights will be the biggest problem, since the Autoroute will be congested with people heading north from Montreal to the Laurentians in the summer for holidays and in the winter for skiing. The trip from Montreal to Mirabel is expected to take two hours, and certainly passengers will have to leave earlier to catch a flight to Mirabel as compared to Dorval under present circumstances.
The Air Transport Association of Canada makes the point that the latest increase appears to further discriminate against those who prefer to travel by air, since similar taxes were not imposed on people using other forms of transportation. It has already been pointed out to the Minister of Transport by knowledgeable people in the Air Transport Association of Canada that people living in cities or towns some distance from the point where charter flights begin sometimes find themselves paying a second airport tax because they have to pay the tax on the connecting flight to the charter flight, as well as another tax on the charter flight.
Certainly, the tax should also apply to foreign travellers using Canadian airports, which is not the case at the moment since the tax applies only to people boarding flights originating in Canada. The whole concept, as usual, has been poorly thought-out. It would do no harm if it and the tax increase were to be delayed until some further thought could be given to the entire matter.
Coming back to the ten-cent gasoline tax, it is particularly damaging to people in my constituency who have to travel long distances to search for and to find employment. It is wrong in still another way for provinces such as Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island which are isolated geographically and in the sense of energy availability. This ten-cent tax, coming upon the $1.50 per barrel increase, imposes what amounts to an unnatural cost and burden on those provinces compared to Ontario, where about 50 per cent of the energy requirements are available from hydro. Prince Edward Island, for example, has to rely on energy obtained from petroleum products for nearly 100 per cent, of its energy requirements at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister did something that was even more regressive than he intended by imposing the ten-cent tax. He has done an extraordinary thing; he has brought in a two-price system based not on geography but on class distinction. I say this because whether one pays the tax or not will depend upon who one is. If a person can bring himself within an exclusion by pleading his profession or other circumstances, such as business requirements, then he is able to escape. For the most part, those able to escape will be those who can afford to pay the tax, and those who are least able to afford it will have to pay. That in itself is an excellent reason for the minister to take another look at this.
July 21, 1975

In the measures arising out of the budget, the Minister of Finance was required to make some hard choices. He was restricted in his options because of the economic climate-not the meteorological one upon which he was inclined to call at times-which he and this government helped to create by policies in previous budgets and the implementation of measures in past years. In many respects I feel sympathetic toward the minister, but my sympathy is tempered by recollections of his past behaviour. If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was too honest and direct for the advancement of his own political cause in telling Canadians the truth a year ago, and offering a realistic assessment of the consequences of unrestrained and undisciplined economic behaviour, the same cannot be said about the conduct of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Can you imagine a measure like this being brought in by the government before the last election? I suggest that no one in his right mind would even consider the possibility. To the credit of the Leader of the Opposition, if he felt that a measure like this was necessary, without doubt he would bring it in at anytime, but he would never bring in an ill-advised measure like this. The Leader of the Opposition offered Canadians the alternative of economic medicine which might have been bitter for a while, as most medicines are. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister preferred to offer Canadians champagne and optimism, assuring Canadians just over one year ago that all was well with the economy and the nation and that the Tories were preaching gloom and doom without just cause.
The government made promises, many promises: a glowing new transportation policy was to be implemented immediately; there was to be an end to regional wage disparities. Liberal candidates in the Atlantic provinces emphasized this particular election promise and said they were behind it. We now see its results! Frankly, I do not have time in the brief time allocated to me to list all the promises made. Now, after the champagne days of last summer, after the broken promises, comes the inevitable letdown and hangover. No one deserves it more than the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: The minister brought in good policies.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: No one will bear the brunt of it, as the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) knows, more than the Minister of Finance. The glory days of the Minister of Finance are over and if he is not careful he may fit the description which the immortal Winston Churchill used when referring to Lord Roseberry several decades ago. Sir Winston described him as having outlived his future by ten years and his past by more than 20.
Time passes quickly and these tax measures may mark the beginning of the end of the Minister of Finance's adroit ability to avoid well deserved political flack. Henceforth, he and the government will be in a great deal of trouble. No one has earned this trouble more than the government. True, the budget did pay lip service to restraint, which is good; it also made the gesture of helping people holding Canadian government annuities. That
Excise Tax Act
was a humanitarian move, as those people had been most unfairly affected by the government's policies which incurred unrestrained inflation.
With the exception of a few tangible measures like the ones just mentioned, the budget is not innovative nor imaginative. Measures like this one fail to recognize that the different regions of this country are constantly encountering different economic difficulties. A policy that is good for one part of the country, as has been said many times, may be the very worst policy for another. In one region unemployment and stagnation may be the major problem, but in another the economy may be booming and inflation may be the biggest problem. Although economic theory dictates different solutions for each different problem, our political and financial system is such-this has been true no matter what government has been in power- that only one national fiscal policy is arrived at. It is imposed on the nation as a whole, despite our great differences and regional anomalies.
Politics dictates, apparently, that fiscal policy should be aimed at solving the problems of the most heavily populated and financially important regions, which means central Canada. As I said at the outset, this particular tax will make its greatest impact felt on those regions of the country which can least afford to pay it, and on those individuals who can least afford it. The other regions of the country are left to get along as well as possible with a fiscal policy which may not suit their economic situation.
I therefore expected the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) at least to pay lip service to the idea of a flexible fiscal policy. Why not develop a flexible policy which will take into account the regional differences in our country? More specifically, Mr. Speaker, at this moment why could the government not introduce a regional fiscal policy which could make a special effort to stimulate the economy of the maritimes by providing money at low interest to small businesses?
The usual criticisms of such suggested policies are well known. Those who criticize say that capital investment will go to the area where the best return on the money lent can be obtained, that is, it will go to where interest rates are highest. Thus, if interest rates are higher in central Canada but lower in the other regions, the banks will do most of their business in the high interest area. This activity will lead to the opposite of what one would wish to achieve by having different interest rates in different areas.
The government has never been reluctant to interfere with and modify the unrestrained policies of private enterprise. This is not necessarily bad. For the sake of argument, why not make it mandatory for the large financial institutions to lend a certain amount of money at low interest to small businesses in depressed regions? True, this would tamper to some extent with the freedom of our banking system, but the government has willingly tampered with the system in the past. Why not experiment in this regard? Even if interest rates must be subsidized to a certain extent, it would be worth while seeing how such an experimental program works. Depressed regions could well be more quickly developed if we used this method. The program would alleviate, if successful, the constant

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
drain of taxpayers' money going to the depressed regions. This money which is channelled into the areas through DREE, UIC, cost-sharing programs, etc., might not be needed to such an extent if this program were introduced and great savings could be effected in the long run.
As for needing to maintain high interest rates in Canada because world interest rates are high and Canada having to offer a good return to attract sufficient investment to counter our trade deficit, is there not some way of adopting a two-price system of interest rates, one for the domestic Canadian market and another for outside financiers from whom we try to borrow?
Although the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said before the budget was brought down that he would provide direct input into the budget and put forward recommendations concerning DREE, which has an important role to play in this country, the budget did not deal with DREE. Neither in the budget nor in Bill C-66 is there evidence to show that the minister tried to do anything to counter the impact which the government's unfair measures will have on those regions of the country for which he is responsible. It was disappointing to see that DREE was not given higher priority. We should be thankful for small mercies. No DREE programs were cut back and for this we give the government credit.
I expected the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to say something innovative and different when he spoke in the recent budget debate. His speech disappointed me, not because he did not speak well-he always does-and not because it was not entertaining.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It made sense.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It was a defensive speech. There are ministers on the treasury benches, as the member for St. Boniface no doubt realizes, who are simply incapable of formulating good policy. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is not one of those. If he were allowed to give his talents full rein, I am sure he would produce better policies than some of his colleagues are producing. Being concerned about what might happen to my province, I asked the minister the following question on June 11, as recorded on page 6649 of Hansard
Because of continuing high unemployment and other economic difficulties, particularly in the Atlantic region, can the minister say whether any specific arrangements will be incorporated into the budget on his recommendations specifically designed to assist DREE to cope better with economic disparities. I am thinking of some measures to single out regions covered by his department for new initiatives in terms of economic assistance to cope with the real difficulties that we have not been able to eradicate. Will the minister be making a statement on this?
The minister declined to make a statement, but said:
-I am sure the hon. member appreciates that while it is true I will be making recommendations and suggestions with regard to certain budgetary matters, the outcome will only be known on budget night.
The folly of this proposed tax must be apparent to all. Obviously, the minister, despite his well-meaning effort to influence his less sensitive colleagues, was not able to do anything to help the depressed areas of Canada improve the significantly poorer position they will find themselves in as a result of the passage of bills like Bill C-66.

I am sure that in the province represented by the hon. member for St. Boniface there are areas where people are drawing unemployment insurance and there are sometimes cases which come to his attention where the person involved is expected to drive a long distance in order to obtain employment.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Not in my constituency.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Well, if that is not the case with the hon. member for St. Boniface, I want to tell him and the House it is a very common occurrence in my constituency in Nova Scotia, particularly in the area known as the eastern shore where there are very few opportunities for employment. It becomes a case of real economic difficulty and puzzlement in deciding whether a person applying for unemployment insurance has made enough of an effort over a wide enough area, even keeping in mind the limited opportunities available for employment.
When a person is expected to drive 50 or 60 miles from the eastern shore of Nova Scotia to the Halifax-Dartmouth area, or to Truro or New Glasgow where there is a greater population and where there are greater and more varied opportunities for employment, it is a very dicey situation. Does it pay to drive 40 or 50 miles? If such a person has to drive this distance-and it is quite common that they do- the hon. member can appreciate the dilemma in which such a person finds himself. If he has to pay an extra ten cents a gallon, with a very marginal job and no hope whatsoever of any rebate, this inflicts a very real hardship. The government and the Minister of Finance should be aware of this. They ought to take measures that will somehow alleviate this problem.
Even in an energy short era, I fail to see how this tax will promote conservation. Frankly, in most cases there is no alternative to the car for people to get to work. If the only purpose of this tax is to generate revenue, rather than to conserve, I say that it is a very regressive measure and ought not to be proceeded with. If the revenue derived from this tax were to be specifically channelled into the development of coal in Nova Scotia, for example, which would provide an alternate energy source, or some sort of public transportation system to help those who have to travel long distances, there would be a little more sympathy for it; but it does not do anything in this regard.
I do not know on how great an authority it is, but from some publications I have been reading lately I am led to believe there is a good possibility that in the years to come our uranium reserves may be depleted to the point where Canada will be faced with a situation with regard to uranium such as the one we now face with our petroleum. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has assured us that this is not the case. He said that he will be looking into this matter and will take whatever additional measures are necessary to protect the long-term interests of this country. I certainly hope that is the case. It would be ironic if in 20 years, as an official of the Ontario Energy Research Board has stated, Canada were in the position with respect to our uranium reserves that we are now in with regard to petroleum.
July 21, 1975

I hope the government will take a sober second look at what it is doing. It does not seem right that the people of this country should be subjected to a tax which is obviously inflationary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As I say, I remain to be convinced that this measure has any merit to encourage conservation. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is a conservationist. He knows very well that this tax will not do anything productive.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are right.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It will only exarcerbate the differences between those Canadians able to afford the good life and those who cannot afford to live well. If there is one thing the average.person in this automobile-oriented society will do, it will be to hang on to and drive his automobile even to the point, in some cases, of skimping on food for his family. Members opposite know that is the case, particularly where there is no alternate means of transportation. I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) seriously to consider the consequences of going ahead with this bill in its present form, particularly when the government is so poorly organized to administer the effects of the tax.
It is significant that no cabinet ministers have risen to support the Minister of Finance on this. I am waiting to hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) state the clear and unequivocal tax policy that will be put into effect with regard to the rebate. I await with interest to hear what the minister's other colleagues have to say. I hope that by their silence they have not committed themselves to going ahead with this measure in its present form. After all, the PLO decision was put off, so this government can change its mind!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That can only be done with the permission of the hon. member. Does the hon. member agree?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member discussed the program he is speaking of with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson)? Has he done any research with regard to the benefits his province has received through the DREE program? I understand from what he has said that he does not know the benefits his province received through that particular minister and program.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the hon. member for St. Boniface by saying that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and I have had many discussions about the economic problems that face not only Nova Scotia but the other provinces. I am well aware of the substantial sums which this government has diverted into this part of Canada. However, in relative terms, I remind the hon. member that all the money that has been diverted into Atlantic Canada for regional eco-
Excise Tax Act
nomic expansion in terms of incentive grants is substantially less than the proposed costs of either of the monster airports at Pickering or Mirabel.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy-Minister's estimate of rate of growth this year; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Manpower-Opportunities for Youth and student summer employment programs- Request for expansion; the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-External Affairs-Government position on attempt to expel Israel from United Nations.



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).
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to open by saying that I am very much in agreement with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I understand that his part of the country, along with other parts, has special difficulties. I want to assure him that this particular bill strikes a grievous blow at many people in the central provinces as well. I refer particularly to constituencies such as my own of Greenwood. I will discuss that in a little more detail later.
I should like to make it clear from the beginning that I do not intend to take up the full 40 minutes allotted to me. I am strongly of the opinion that except in special cases, that is too much time. I think we make much better speeches when we are confined to 20 minutes. This being my view, I should like to be consistent with it and try to keep my own speech short; I do not always succeed, but I hope I shall on this occasion.
In my previous incarnation I was connected with the legal profession, and had I been called upon to give judgment on Bill C-66 I would have dealt with it very quickly;

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
I would have been content to say I concurred with my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) and others who have spoken, especially the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), and that I had nothing to add. However, I am not speaking in a judicial capacity; I am here as a representative of my constituents. I say that this tax has dealt a grievous blow to them, and I believe I owe it to the people I represent to express the strongly held views they hold on this legislation.
To put the matter in a nutshell or, possibly, in one or two nutshells, this tax is, in my view, inflationary, regressive and unjust. I do not intend to expand on the inflationary and regressive aspects since something which is inflationary and regressive is inherently unjust. The reason it is unjust is simple: it imposes a burden on those least able to bear it, factory and office workers for whom a car is a necessity, not a luxury, because they have to travel to work. It is these people who will bear the major burden of the tax, not the well-to-do, not those who use cars for pleasure or as a luxury.
There are many thousands in the riding of Greenwood who use their cars to get to work. We have heard from people in other parts of the country about this problem, and it exists in my area. In a large urban area such as I represent, a great many people do not work near where they live. It is by no means uncommon for people to travel 25 miles to work and back again, sometimes more, sometimes less; I think 25 miles would be a reasonable average. This is the group which has to bear the main burden of the new tax.
The action of the government in this regard illustrates as well as anything could the difference between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. The tax system favoured by the Liberals is tilted in favour of the rich. The philosophy of the NDP, on the other hand, is egalitarian. We believe in taxes such as steeply graded income taxes which seek to create a more just society by equalizing incomes.
During the course of the present debate, one of the members who supports the government, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), said it was better to impose the tax on the people who consume the product rather than have it paid by way of general taxation which, however imperfectly, is so set up at the present time that heavier burdens are placed on the well-to-do. It is precisely this which distinguishes our party from that of the government on this matter. He said the middle income groups would prefer this way of doing things, rather than in the form of income tax which, he added, falls particularly heavily on middle income groups.
I do not think the income tax bears so terribly hard on those groups, but it certainly does not bear with undue harshness on the affluent. It is all very well to talk as the Liberal Party does from time to time about the just society, but unless the taxation system is directed to creating the just society by bringing about a more equal share of the national income, the phrase "just society" becomes an example of nothing more than election-time rhetoric.
The bill we are debating is another example of the direction the government's policies are taking. It is designed to bolster up an acquisitive society with all its inequities. There is another area in which the measure

would fall hardest on those with modest means. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie has explained how at certain levels of society the automobile is used extensively for vacation travel. The advent of this tax will force many people to revise their summer vacation travel plans. This, of course, will hit hard those who depend on tourism for their income. But there is another group which will be affected. There is one reform which has come about in the lifestyle of Canadians during my lifetime and during my active interest in politics which I most heartily support. It is the tremendous growth of vacations with pay.
In the thirties, when I first took an active interest in politics, visiting the beautiful lakes and rivers with which Canada is so richly endowed was the privilege of the affluent few. Very few industrial workers got a vacation unless, of course, they had one forced upon them by prolonged unemployment. Fortunately, collective bargaining and legislation together have changed all this, and today many workers have been able to acquire or rent summer cottages where they can spend weekends or vacations using, in most cases, their own cars for transport.
I am afraid this bill will make it harder for these people to afford a healthy and enjoyable experience which in my view is the birthright of all Canadians, especially of industrial workers and their families, that of getting out of the cities into the open where they can benefit their health and sustain their spirits by recreation.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has expressed the hope that the excise tax, combined with the expected increase in the price of a barrel of oil, will encourage motorists to save gasoline. In other words, the conservation of gasoline, a highly desirable objective, is called in aid in an effort to justify this tax. But where is the evidence that the effect of the legislation will be to save gasoline? If saving gas is the objective, there are many, far better ways in which it could be accomplished. One would be to negotiate with the provinces to bring about a reduction of the speed limit. Incidentally, this might save a few lives as well. If the government were concerned about the conservation of gasoline, it would move in the field of extending public transit systems which today are only a supplement, not an alternative, to travel by car.
Above all, if the government were to carry out the promises made in the last election, it would transform this situation. Let me put on the record some of the things that were promised in the last election campaign. On June 17, 1974, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced in Toronto a $270 million program to aid public transit. He said:
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 the next day, June 18, while in Cornwall, the Prime Minister said:
July 21, 1975

-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 Windsor-Quebec City corridor, introduce luxurious transcontinental excursion trains and establish a "super-bus" service between medium sized cities.
Incidentally, while I am reciting the promises that were made, may I point out that the Liberals also promised to set up a national urban transportation development corporation to promote improvements and develop policy on urban transportation. This was mentioned in the 1973-74 annual report of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. But on May 1, 1975, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) admitted that the corporation had not yet been set up. All this talk during the election campaign has turned out to be mere promises designed for election purposes. But its relevancy to this discussion is very real, because if these promises were implemented it would take the pressure off the necessity of travelling by automobile and would in fact conserve gasoline.
The government's actions speak louder than its words. We have already had a reference in the House this afternoon to the Pickering airport. If it were constructed, it would serve roughly 10 per cent of the public, a small section. If it were constructed, it would gobble up high-class agricultural land. If it were constructed, it would multiply the transportation problems of urban areas such as my own riding. No one really wants this new airport. There has never been any demonstrated need for it. Public opinions polls have been taken in the area affected and have shown fairly substantial majorities against it. I do not know which members the government has consulted, but whenever it consulted me I made it very clear that the people of Greenwood do not want the Pickering airport.
If the proposed airport were built as a single runway, minimum airport, it would divert fewer than 10 per cent of aircraft operations from Malton by 1980-and this was supposed to be the purpose of the new airport. It appears that plans have been silently switched again and we are now back to a large Pickering airport. Only the refusal of the Ontario government to provide the highways and infrastructure has caused the government to halt its obstinate course.
Let the government take this ill-conceived scheme and drop it in the lake. Let it use the money to carry out its promise of a rapid transit development system within and between cities. Although the Minister of Finance is not here this afternoon-he usually is, but I assume he will read the debate-I suggest that his budget and taxation policy be used to implement, not to disregard, the promises made in the election campaign which are beneficial to the people.
Can anyone wonder at the apathy and cynicism with which much of our political system is regarded by the public? In my view, this is a bad bill, and in saying that I feel I am expressing the feelings of the vast majority of my constituents. I condemn this particular bill and I make it clear that I, for one-and, indeed, I think all members of my party-will vote against it.
Excise Tax Act


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, in rising on Bill C-66 and the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), I have definitely no intention of extending this debate which, in my opinion, has been dragging on for quite enough time. In fact, you know about that from what we did during the week-end. We kept hoping it would be over, but as there seems to be no end to that debate, everyone has to say his word, and I realize government members are doing everything they can to restrict that debate, but I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, we are heading for a marathon type debate on that bill which will make a complete mess of the well deserved vacation of all members.
Considering the number of members who want to speak and who will, it is obvious that Progressive Conservative members definitely want to drag this session throughout summer.
I have once again to criticize the government, because it is always the same thing, the same tactics. They always take advantage of the fact that the session is coming to an end, or that a vacation is getting nearer to introduce controversial bills like this one. Of course, this bill is a logical consequence of the last budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), a budget which we actually turn down.
After wasting so much time in this House with empty speeches throughout the winter months, as soon as the few sunny days of summer are back, the government forces us to do everything in double quick time if we are to get some vacation. Mr. Speaker, it is childish, ridiculous and unfair, not only to members of parliament, but also to their families who are waiting for them to come back and spend a few days in the sun. Let us not forget that in autumn and during the long winter months, once again, we shall have plenty of time to make speeches and talk to the Chair. I therefore urge Progressive Conservative members, even though they are like us convinced that that tax is unfair, to have some pity for all those children who are waiting for us to be back for a few weeks. If this debate was to have a positive outcome, I would be the first one to stay here all summer, but as we all know, the government has an absolute majority, and everything will end up in a vote which will once again ratify the government's proposals. This government was elected by the people, and this is a democracy!


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: We are of course opposed to Bill C-66 which levies a 10 cent excise tax on every gallon of gas used for private purposes. For the information of the public, I must say that this tax does not result from the increase in oil prices. I do not know whether the mass media or the government itself led the people to believe that this 10 cent markup was due to the increase in oil prices, because this was the general impression among the people. I spent the whole weekend trying to explain that it was not as a result of the increase in oil prices. They will experience the result in a few weeks, but this is an excise tax, a 10 cent tax per gallon of gas.
7778

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
Mr. Speaker, actually the increase in oil prices has nothing to do with the 10 cent tax per gallon. This bill stems from a tax, once again, an excise tax of 10 cents a gallon on gas that could have been imposed on any other produce, for that matter. So, I feel it is most unfortunate that gas should have been singled out to collect budgetary funds after the spiralling increase faced by the people in recent weeks. Why, for example, has the tax on wines not been maintained? They went as far as removing the tax on wines; why did they not tax alcohol, tobacco even more? Let us levy if necessary a tax on luxury items but let us stop taking from those who are in immediate need of a commodity, gas for example, those who must use it to go to work.
Our opposition is still stronger as far as selective and protectionist exemptions in the bill are concerned. Going through these exemptions by the present government, it is apparent that the burden is put on the lower income group to pay for the government's wasteful spending. It has always been my view that the first criterion of a national legislation is universality. If this tax is to close the gap between compensation payments and export tax revenues, this should be another reason for the legislation to be universal, for everyone to pay. A selective measure like this one is always discriminatory, because it once again burdens the workers, who should be the first to be exempted if we are to have exemptions.
I read the bill a number of times to try and find out why the minister introduced such a legislation. What was his purpose? I found some kind of an answer in one of his statements, that the bill will help stimulate-and nothing less-the use of public transit. Such a statement is the end of it. Since I was first elected here we have been fighting for improved passenger transportation, and even now we are fighting to maintain what is left of the remnants of CNR services, and lo and behold! The government says it intends to reorganize and encourage public transportation. That is the best one I have heard so far in this session.
What improvements does the government propose? Will it finally convince CNR's technocrats to stress service before profitability? In those rarefied spheres, they strive for profitability but we say that in public transportation, service should be the first priority. So today, they are proving us right because they wish to promote service. Let them give adequate passenger services, good public transportation, and then let the 10 cent tax stimulate workers to use such public transportation, but there must be public transportation in the first place.
As things now stand the 10 cents per gallon tax is directly affecting workers. In large centres, with measures proposed by the minister to reorganize bus services or public transit, it is going to be easy or at least easier than in our rural areas. I feel sure that if they want to, the ministry can provide adequate service to people in large centres. According to his estimate, this policy will save a good deal of energy and in this manner travels will be restricted or, in cities, the use of private automobiles for workers driving to work will be restricted.
As far as cities are concerned, the idea may be of some value, but in the country it will not work as, at the moment, there is no public transportation system. The man who leaves his community to go to work in the next

town absolutely needs a car, which is his main working tool and now it is on this very tool that a tax is imposed while all others are exempted.
In the bill, as far as exemptions are concerned, those who could afford to pay are exempted. Here are a few examples, I quote:
(a)	Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or any agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province,
(b)	a person for commercial or business purposes-
This means that all industrialists and businessmen will be able to get a rebate. Yet, there has also been mention of farmers and fishermen, which is quite acceptable. However, there is another matter to be resolved: How will the rebate be made?
Mr. Speaker, thousands of inspectors go around and search the houses of our farmers since this famous tax has been invented. This often gives heart attacks to the farmers. We shall have to distinguish between gasoline used for farming and gasoline used for pleasure. I do not know what regulations will be invented, but I know that it will take an army of inspectors to check on each farmer and to check each bill to determine if it was really used for the purpose indicated. The same will apply to businessmen and those who will benefit from thee rebate.
In my opinion, in addition to being unfair to the small wage earner, this bill discriminates even against the farmers and the fishermen. It will provide an excellent opportunity to create new protected jobs since these taxes, that will be just sufficient to pay all the inspectors and the inspections costs, will have to be collected. I am certain that the money collected will be just sufficient to pay all these people and to get all other small wage earners fed up. This is another measure that is aimed at providing jobs for people in the party. It is favouritism aimed at bleeding those who go for a drive with ten gallons of gas in their car instead of their truck or tractor without reporting it. If the inspector finds out, the farmer will pay a fine, and I imagine that the investigations will multiply. Mr. Speaker, we all know what can happen when there are investigations.
The bill will be passed and this is why we have to talk as though it already had been passed. I would like to ask the minister, who had to leave the House, or his representative-he can read Hansard-the Minister of National Revenue, who said the other day to the press, and I quote:
Not a gift. The Minister of Revenue pointed out, yesterday, that the reimbursement of the 10-cent excise tax on each gallon of gas to users of vehicles to business or commercial ends will be taxable-
Notice that: they take with one hand and grab with the other.
-will be taxable, contrary to what the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Ron Basford, indicated earlier in the week.
Indeed, on Monday, Mr. Basford stated that the tax announced in the June 23 federal budget would not be subject to tax.
It will be taxable. Imagine! After telling the farmers, "You will be exempt; give us your receipts and we will reimburse you the 10 cents a gallon." Right after, one hour later, they are told they will be taxed. What a joke! It is as a result of problems such as those that farmers, fishermen, those who are supposedly going to be exempted, are in fact
July 21, 1975

going to be fooled; once again, they will say: The act seemed to do all right by us, but again it will mean nothing. Once again, it is meaningless.
That is the only kind of bills we study in depth, and then pass here. The big shots are protected, those who could afford to pay the tax. That is why I say we would be better off levying a luxury tax on alcoholic beverages. Those who can afford to drink, let them be taxed: I could not care less. I don't mind alcohol or tobacco being taxed three times more than now. For my part, I do not smoke. That does not make any difference. That would be favourable to the health of our general population.
But they are taxing a sector essential to our family heads, to our workers, and we are going to accept that straight away, Mr. Speaker. It is impossible. A little further, the minister told us that the bill would contribute, they claim the purpose of this bill is to remedy the recession and fight inflation. Just another reason the minister gave us. That ghost of inflation behind which the minister hides is a myth which the population is now used to.
When he wants to be serious, the minister knows perfectly that any new tax causes an increase in the cost of living, thus kindling inflation. Let's stop considering our fellow citizens as stupid, because they suffer in silence all government extravagancies. I hope only one thing: that the awakening of the population be not so violent as to send our parliamentary institution over board, because of the lack of seriousness or, even worse, the lack of responsibility of the present government.
I will conclude by saying that all we can say will certainly not change anything to the situation, but at least people will know we have fought fearlessly against such action. We will vote for the amendment of the opposition, to postpone for six months the discussion of the bill, and we will vote against Bill C-66.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to the debate last Wednesday when the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) said there was nothing good in the budget. Having been caught once remarking that there was something good in one of the minister's budgets and being quoted thereafter, he said this time that there was absolutely nothing of any use in this budget. On that point I almost agree with him but, after a great deal of examination, I did find something useful in it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On what page?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: On page 28 of the budget speech when the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the government will be introducing legislation to increase the rate of return on existing Government of Canada annuities.
This is a piece of legislation to which we are looking forward, and I wish it were in front of us instead of the present bill. It would move a lot faster, believe me. That is the last kind word I have to say about the budget.


An hon. Member:: The minister does not say what percentage increase it will be.
Excise Tax Act


Allan Bruce McKinnon: This is something about which the elderly citizens in my constituency are left in doubt. I do not see why the minister could not announce what the percentage increase of these annuities will be. I suggest that he could increase them 100 per cent and make a good case for it. I believe the payments are computed on a 4 per cent annual interest rate, but I think that 8 per cent would be a reasonable return in these days of expensive money and inflation, caused by this government. I would think that anything less than a 100 per cent increase in the annuity payments would not be satisfactory.
However, now that I have covered the good point in the budget I would like to make another brief comment about it. At first I thought it was a good point that the minister appeared to have spared us his usual sneaky little trick of dropping taxpayers from the tax roll. I have sat in the House through about three budgets and I have read several more which were brought down before I came here, going back to the Benson budgets when the Liberal minister of finance one year claimed to have dropped one million taxpayers off the tax rolls, and the next year
800.000.	One year 400,000 were dropped, and the next year
500.000.	Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that of those millions of people I have never met one?
At the start of the speech the minister would announce the raising of exemptions and he would say that they dropped off so many taxpayers, and then later in the speech he would announce the raising of the income tax. So these are a kind of recycled taxpayers. This time the minister has done it differently. He claims to have cut the budget by $1 billion. So this year he is recycling billions of dollars instead of taxpayers. I suppose that this might be considered an improvement.
At page 14 of the budget speech the minister stated:
The government has therefore decided upon a wide ranging set of measures, covering our statutory as well as our non-statutory programs, budgetary as well as non-budgetary spending, our salary as well as our hiring policies. All are directed to bringing outlays under more effective control and to slowing down their rate of growth this year and into the future. Our target of cuts this fiscal year is $1 billion.
That sounds great until you look a little farther along at the tables on page 40 where you see the title "Government of Canada Revenues and Expenditures on a National Accounts Basis". Under the year 1974-75, preliminary actual, total expenditures, you find $30,678,000,000. In the next column under the year 1975-76, forecast, you find $35,845,000,000. So the minister has stopped dropping people off the tax rolls and increasing the number somewhere else, and has chopped $1 billion from the budget. Miraculously it turns out to be a $5 billion increase.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I wish to bring to his attention that we are not debating the budget at this time but rather Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act. The budget debate is over. I am prepared to give the hon. member all the latitude this House will allow, but I hope that he will soon come to his remarks about the Excise Tax Act modifications which are before the House at this time.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I read with interest several of the debates which have taken place in the last few days and.
29669-9i/2

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
with respect, it seems that some hon. members managed to get quite a considerable distance away from this bill.


An hon. Member:: They were all Tory speeches.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I had hoped for an opportunity to reply, particularly to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and to some of the charges he made about the government of the province of Ontario, which at the time did not seem to me to be particularly relevant to Bill C-66.
I would like to read from Hansard for July 16 where the hon. member for Nickel Belt said:
For the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to castigate the Liberals for the kind of mean legislation they are introducing-is to forget, Mr. Speaker, that the province of Ontario takes 19 cents on every gallon of gasoline for the provincial coffers.
That being in order on July 16,1 would like to reply to it on July 21, if I might. Such a thesis is advanced by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I can say quite sincerely that he fulfills all the requirements for a good socialist speaker in that he is able to speak quite irrationally on a subject, but with the utmost conviction. The thesis he advances would prohibit people from speaking about this tax bill if they were of the same political faith as the government in the province in which they live and if that province has a tax which is levied on gasoline.
On should perhaps think of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is present tonight. I presume the hon. member for Nickel Belt is claiming that there is no gasoline tax in Manitoba and none in Saskatchewan, but I happen to know that there is in B.C., and I am informed that there is also a gasoline tax in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Yet I would be the last one to deny the right of the NDP to castigate this defective bill on the excuse that they should not be allowed to because their particular brand of government has a tax on gasoline in their province.
In British Columbia it is interesting that the gasoline tax was recently increased two cents per gallon. God knows most of us know enough about politics in Canada to sympathize with provincial governments because of the very narrow taxation fields left to them. There are few ways for them to raise funds for highways other than a gasoline tax. In B.C. the NDP government decided not to use the tax levied on the poor driver to repair highways or build new highways. Instead it is being put to a most peculiar purpose. In British Columbia for many years there was a pretty healthy automobile insurance business, which paid in taxes on premiums something in the order in 1970 of $2.9 million; in 1972, $3.2 million; and in 1973, $3.7 million to provincial coffers.
This made the NDP government rather envious, and its members thought the companies must be making enormous profits, so they thought they would take over that business, and of course with government expertise in all these things they thought they would do extremely well. They took it over, and the resulting loss in tax revenues to the provincial government by this monopolizing of an industry is $3 million to $4 million per annum. On top of that this government company has managed to lose $35 million. The industry was quite healthy when the government took it over, and to make up for the $35 million it managed to lose, the government imposed a gasoline tax

increase. The poor driver in B.C. has to pay for the inefficiency of the Socialist hordes, and it comes pretty hard at times.
I would like to make one small comment on the claim made by the NDP, not in this debate but on this subject, that the main fight which is going on in this House regarding the budgetary measures of the government, including this ten cents excise tax, is coming from the NDP. This was stated by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) on, I believe, the CTV network. Of course I can never hope to reach the audience the hon. member had in order to correct him, but he said that he thought that the main battle against this iniquitous budget was coming from the NDP. I would like to point out that a quick scanning of the pages of Hansard during the six days of the budget debate indicate that on June 25 there were four speakers, one of whom was a New Democrat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quality that counts.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Where were the others?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: That I do not know. On June 26 there was one New Democratic speaker of nine members who spoke: on June 27 there was one NDP speaker of nine members who spoke; on July 2 there was one NDP speaker of 13 members who spoke; on July 3 there was one NDP speaker of 13 members who spoke; and on July 4 there were no speakers from the NDP and 12 from other parties. This came to a total of five NDP speakers-out of a total of 60 speeches made-putting up the battle and the real opposition, according to the hon. member for New Westminster, to the budget. This is some fight, the greatest since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) started wrestling inflation to the ground, and it has had about as much result. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, during the dinner recess I had an opportunity to look over the remarks I made earlier today concerning the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and his allegations about the NDP fight against the budget. It occurred to me that not all Hansard readers would identify him as the TV personality of the convention. It was the hon. member for New Westminster whom the commentators kept saying should have been running instead of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I am inclined to agree with them.
However, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is to be congratulated on his pre-ordained victory-ordained primarily in the offices of the giant multinational unions. It is one of the ironies of Canadian politics that the party with the word "democratic" as part of its name should
July 21, 1975

conduct such an undemocratic leadership convention where nearly half the delegates were not elected by their neighbours but instead were selected by the giant multinational unions. These organizations thought so little of the convention that they sent only enough delegates to guarantee the election of their choice.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Out of order.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby should be congratulated.
Looking at this budget bill, C-66-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It's about time.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: -I would like to remark that I am a great admirer of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and his department in the House during the last seven months. During question period we had the experience of the minister for five months saying that he could not answer questions because he was waiting for his budget measures to work their way through the economy. Then came a change and in April he could not answer any questions because he was bringing in a new budget. Maybe he is getting into a seven month cycle where we will have a new budget every seven months, followed by a period in which he will not answer questions on his budget measures, saying he must wait for them to have a salutary effect on the economy. Then there will be a period preceding the next budget which is meant to rectify the miserable failure of the previous one.
I should like to ask the minister if he had considered an exemption, in Bill C-66, for handicapped people from the ten cents per gallon excise tax?


Mr. McKinley:: The minister is not here; his parliamentary secretary is not here.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Many handicapped people are absolutely unable to use public transportation. Some have gone to great expense to have their cars modified and some have built special ramps to enable them to wheel themselves into their cars. It seems to me unreasonable and cruel to charge these people this ten cents per gallon excise tax.
I wrote to the minister some time ago about this matter. After the usual cordial salutation he replied:
The department has received a number of representations asking that some deduction be allowed in respect of transportation expenses for the handicapped, particularly in respect of their expenses incurred getting to and from work. Therefore, the proposal has previously received considerable study. In general, deductions in computing income are allowed either in respect of amounts incurred to earn income or in recognition of a particular circumstance which necessitates the incurring of abnormal expenses. For tax purposes, disability is recognized as necessitating relief in two forms, namely, through medical expense deductions and in a special exemption for the disabled.
Unfortunately this only applies to people who are bedridden or in wheel chairs. A great number of deserving handicapped Canadians are unable to qualify, not being bedridden or in wheel chairs, so I think it is unfair of the minister to suggest that he is all heart when it comes to every bedridden patient who cannot work. He should also worry about those who with a great deal of effort are able
Excise Tax Act
to go to work. He should find it possible to do something for them. The letter continued:
Transportation expense is an expense highly dictated by personal choice and subject to a number of widely varying conditions.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is tommyrot when talking about disabled people who have no choice of transportation.
The letter continues:
Because of the broad difference in the amount spent for transportation and the range of circumstances which influence the amount spent, nearly all tax systems follow the rule that no general deduction is permitted for personal transportation expenses.
Dismaying as it was to receive such a reply to representations made on behalf of my constituents, I had hoped that the minister might find it possible, in his budget speech at least, where he made several other exemptions, to do something for these people. Such was not the case, however, despite the fact that Bill C-66 makes some exemptions.
On page 2 the bill gives the right to rebate as follows: 47.(1) Where gasoline has been purchased by
(a)	Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or any agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province,
(b)	a person for commercial or business purposes,
(c)	a farmer for farming purposes,
(d)	a fisherman, hunter or trapper for commercial fishing, hunting or trapping,
(e)	a person under conditions for which relief from the consumption or sales tax is provided by virtue of any provision of this act other than subsection 27(2), or
(f)	a person within a class of persons exempt from tax under part I of the Income Tax Act.
I think a considerable percentage of the population must be covered by these provisions so I find it strange that the minister could not make an exception for the few handicapped people who depend on transportation to get to work.
I checked on the number of people involved and, although it is difficult to get the figures, I learned that in the province of Ontario there are 3,867 people driving with licences limited to those cars which have an automatic gearshift or an abridged clutch-brake system. Presumably since there are 3,867 such licences in Ontario there are that many handicapped people driving cars. It would be fair to say, surely, that there are about 10,000 such people in Canada, every one of whom is required to drive a special type of car, at additional expense, and every one of whom is making a sincere effort to be part of the work force, despite the handicap. If each person uses, say, two gallons per working day, each person will use 400 gallons a year; at ten cents per gallon, times 10,000, the minister would collect an additional $400,000, or $40 per person.
I know that there is a legend in this House. Mr. C. D. Howe once said, "What's a million?" He said it in the days when $1 million was a lot of money. Surely as the budget contemplates the spending of about $35 billion, the minister could look favourably on the request of the handicapped, who want to deprive him of only $400,000 out of his income exceeding $30 billion. If the minister cannot

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
exclude these people, I ask him to consider giving them the right to rebate.
I note that the minister said on July 9, when participating in debate on the Excise Tax Act, as reported at page 7410 of Hansard:
Nor was it in the national interest that the excise tax on gasoline be paid by hospitals, or by educational, welfare, and charitable organizations.
I think he can stretch that a little and include the handicapped. Or, in the alternative, the handicapped ought to be allowed to band together as a charitable organization, and therefore come under the provisions relating to charitable organizations. But I point out that these people are independent minded. They do not wish to band themselves together and accept charity. They wish to be as self-sustained as possible and are willing to do everything they can to maintain themselves as independent members of our work force.
I look forward to this debate being carried on in the committee stage, in two or three weeks time or whenever it happens to be, when we shall all have the opportunity to speak as often as we want. I hope to ask the minister some definite questions concerning his intentions with regard to the handicapped. It saddens me to see that, after having received my representations by letter, he should introduce a measure like this which will so clearly hurt those people, and that so far he has refused to do anything to make their lot easier.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express unequivocal support for my leader's amendment to Bill C-66, which would hoist this bill for six months. I find it strange to note that no government members are rising to speak. Not one has risen to speak since last week. Obviously they fear this bill, and run from the House. I suggest that there is complete chaos over on the government side with regard to implementation of this legislation. The implementation provisions were to be explained fully by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford). Is it not strange that he has not spoken on the bill? I hope these matters will be made clear before the debate ends.
There is very little in the latest budget that would lead anyone to believe that it will be of benefit to anyone in the nation, let alone the nation as a whole. The proposed excise tax on retail gasoline is probably the best example of the discrimination that is running rampant in the government's recent thinking. This measure will certainly produce some blatant discrimination against the groups of individuals who are already carrying the greatest tax burden on their shoulders at this time. I refer to the working people who produce the goods and services that keep our country going and prospering, despite the best efforts of the government. The latest mish-mash of tax increases has landed squarely in the laps of the same people; and these are the people who have no legal way to retrieve their tax dollars. They cannot afford to "buy" the loopholes that many affluent members of society can. And they do not have a huge margin of extra income to draw on when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) decides that they should carry an extra load.

I accept the concept of the two-price system for oil and the benefits of fuel for Canadians at less than the international price. But I cannot ask any working person in any part of this country to carry the load for me by way of an excise tax on gasoline. This is exactly what this budgetary measure calls for. I cannot understand why people living in Stonewall or Headingly, Manitoba, and happening to work 15 or 20 miles away, in Winnipeg, should have to pay an extra ten cents per gallon which they cannot recover, so that we can have a two-price system for oil. There has to a more realistic method to raise the funds required, a method that would have every taxpayer in the nation bear the burden equally, and not single out certain individuals who can least afford this burden.
There is a score of methods by which this job could have been carried out more effectively, and certainly more fairly. This makes one think it very strange that this budget was even produced unless it was simply the result of compromise amid a disagreeing cabinet. If this is the case then it is a splendid example of the old addage, "With compromise, everyone loses."
As has been stated before, we believe this matter could have been handled for the benefit of the Canadian people in a much more sensible and able manner than by the introducing of this very discriminatory tax.
Let us examine some of the alternatives. Foremost is some kind of a coherent transportation policy that will give individuals an alternative to the daily waste of gas they cannot avoid. Surely if the government had a genuine desire to conserve oil it would produce a transportation system which was a viable alternative to the automobile, a system which people would be enticed to use. Without doubt, if we had better passenger train operations in this country and some semblance of rapid transit systems in more cities, we could get more people involved in other modes of transportation.
Canadians are, in many cases, virtually forced to drive their automobiles to work. The result is a vast, unnecessary waste of gasoline. This, coupled with the higher costs occasioned by the new tax, means that working Canadians will have to ask their employers for more money. The individual employer will have to raise his prices to cover his own increased costs, and the circle continues, with a higher inflation rate as the inevitable result.
This proposal for taxing gasoline at ten cents a gallon will result in about $525 million in revenue. The oil subsidy program is estimated to cost about $400 million. Even if one did agree with the government's archaic methods one would have to note that the revenue is excessive by over $100 million. This is over kill.
It will be argued that the full ten cents, while unnecessary, will result in greater conservation of energy. I submit that the effect on conservation will be negligible. The people I mentioned, those who must drive to work, cannot choose not to buy gasoline. Until public transportation systems improve the present situation is a fact of life. For people who can afford to drive for pleasure, ten cents a gallon makes little difference. The effect of the conservation measure of these people will be nil.
Until the government can show an example of restraint and conservation in its own back yard, any of its words on
July 21, 1975

this subject will be treated as the total hogwash they are- and that mild word is being used only out of respect for parliament, for which we still have feeling on this side.
If the government had any real commitment to saving, there are hundreds of things it could do. This has been said before, but it will keep on being said until someone on that side begins to listen. The government could cut out some whole programs. Certainly some LIP and OFY projects are questionable. If the Liberals could do without their publicly funded propaganda arm, easily half the budget of Information Canada could be cut. They could and indeed must cut back on the billion dollars a year that is spent on outside consulting services.
If the government were serious it would exercise a little more common sense before introducing an unnecessary expenditure the size of Petro-Can, a move that had to be the greatest example of inappropriateness until this budget was introduced. It was totally inappropriate to introduce a tax measure that is going to raise inflation by 2 per cent during a time of unprecedented high inflation. It was totally inappropriate to introduce a measure that is supposed to force people to conserve gasoline by using public transport when public transportation is non-existent for 80 per cent of the working people in the country. Also, it was totally inappropriate to introduce a tax that is blatantly discriminatory against the working poor and the working people at a time when these groups are already being taxed to death by all levels of government.
The government has the unmitigated gall to call for conservation when its own shameful, irresponsible waste is the very reason for the bulk of the country's woes. I find that the very lowest form of hypocrisy.
A great deal more can be said about the implementation and administration of this tax. It was the botched up result of the short sighted thinking that we have come to expect from a government that has apparently lost sight of reality of the practical considerations and consequences of its actions.
The tax was levied against the refiners and importers of gasoline, and the date of commencement was set at June 24, 1975. The gasoline in the hands of wholesalers and retailers on which the special excise tax had not been levied should have been available to consumers at the pre-tax price. However, this was often not the case and the retail price immediately jumped at many pumps. A little more thought by the government to alternatives, such as a date of commencement on July 1, might have helped to avoid the problem and a fair number of consumer rip-offs.
Some other major problems with this excise tax have to do with the administration of the refund claims and the very question of who will be exempt. The question has been raised about municipalities not being specifically referred to in the bill. I wonder what other groups have been inadvertently left out of the exempt categories. This was very fully covered this evening by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). Notwithstanding this, the volume of paper work involved in processing the exemption claims will be staggering, probably resulting in a further expansion of the federal bureaucracy to handle it.
Excise Tax Act
This runs contrary to the supposed purpose of the budget, to restrict the growth of the public service.
It is pretty obvious that this bill has been very poorly drafted and will result in an administrative nightmare. I can only hope that the government will see fit to swallow whatever pride it has salvaged and co-operate with us in attempting to improve the situation and the legislation.
I have outlined the reasons why I feel this legislation is inappropriate, unrealistic, useless and damaging. It is obvious that it is dangerously inflationary at a precarious time for our economy.
Worst of all, it is doing expressly what the Minister of Finance has vowed not to do, that is, fight the country's economic battles on the backs of the working poor. With the ineffective strategies being employed in this war there will be an awful lot of broken backs before it is all over.
In a recent newsletter the Canadian Chamber of Commerce summed it up very well. They are certainly in tune with the Conservative party in their thinking about this bill. I quote from the newsletter:
"Unless there is an immediate end to the battle between governments for resources industry revenues," said Mr. B. T. Johnson, Chairman of Executive Council of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, "the real loser will continue to be the consumer. The ability of the industry to find and develop new sources of supply is hampered by the lack of money."
"The Canadian consumer should not be misled into believing that the recent increases in petroleum prices are providing large profits to the petroleum industry," said Mr. Johnson in a statement released today. "In fact, by taking larger and larger tax bites without regard to their impact, the federal and provincial governments have become the real beneficiaries of recent price increases."
"The latest $1.50 per barrel increase authorized by the federal budget of June 23 is a classic example," he said. "Unless the producing provinces reduce their royalty rates the entire $1.50 will continue to be taken by the federal and provincial governments until December 31, 1975, and thereafter the governments will receive approximately $1.25 or 83 per cent, while the industry will retain about 25 cents or 17 per cent and then only provided there is a very substantial re-investment of funds by the industry in exploration and development. This is equivalent to a wage-earner receiving a $1 per hour increase in wages and taking home only 17 cents."
Mr. Johnson said, "The Chamber is concerned that the actions of some provincial governments have further reduced the revenue that should have been available to the industry, by the temporary freezing of prices and/or the requirement of applying to a provincial board for approval to implement the federally-authorized price increase."
"Such interference in the competitive market system," said Mr. Johnson, "artificially reduces prices for a short period with little benefit to the consumer, causing the industry to lose millions of dollars that would otherwise be available to develop new sources of supply and assist Canada to regain its self-sufficiency in petroleum products in the 1980's."
"The consumer should also know where the money goes when he buys a gallon of gas at the service station," said Mr. Johnson. "Off the top of the retail price in Montreal of 78.9 cents per gallon, the federal and provincial governments take 32.3 cents including the 10 cent-per-gallon excise tax imposed by the recent federal government budget. The service station operator receives about 10 cents per gallon. Of the 36 cents per gallon balance, approximately 12 cents is paid out in royalties and income taxes. A similar breakdown applies across Canada, varying only with the application of provincial taxes and retail margins, leaving 24 cents to pay for exploration, drilling, extracting, storage, refining, transportation, marketing, wages, interest on borrowings and other costs."
In summary, Bill C-66 is highly inflationary. It is in direct conflict with the government's so-called consensus plan which was announced some weeks ago. The consen-

Excise Tax Act
sus plan was to deal with inflation. However, after a few meetings with business and labour we heard no more. The plan apparently died, and inflation continues to run unchecked in Canada. When will the minister and the government bring in proper legislation to deal with inflation?
Has this government no compassion or conscience? I beg them to stop the double-talk and window-dressing consensus plans and act now before they completely destroy this country.
It is the Progressive Conservative party, the official opposition, which has led the fight to,oppose Bill C-66. As the Liberal member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), who is the Liberal member for Winnipeg South, will be voting for this huge tax increase, I will be the voice for these two consituencies and vote against this bill on their behalf as well as on behalf of the residents of Winnipeg South Centre.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to cover too much old ground that has been sort of mulled about in the chamber, although I cannot help but comment on a couple of features that other speakers dealt with at some length.
I think it is important that we talk about the bill instead of a number of fairly unrelated matters. This bill is clearly a regressive piece of legislation, the kind one can expect from a Liberal government, a government that is very cautious at election time about the great Canadian population. But between elections we have grown to accept this kind of cynicism, this kind of bill which clearly has the same kind of impact on someone earning $30,000 as on someone who is earning $7,000. Its effects will be least among the elite, among certain people in the business community who can deduct this iniquitous tax; but my constituents, who have to drive to work every day, really do not have any choice. We cannot expect people who have to drive 20 miles every morning through the Fraser Valley into Vancouver to stop driving simply because they feel the tax is too high. We cannot expect them to stop consuming gasoline.
I wish to deal with the spurious argument that somehow this tax contributes to the conservation of gasoline. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) dealt at some length with the problems of those who occupy themselves with the affairs of their community in a practical way, people who have a socialist regard for the common good and who volunteer their time as necessary.


An hon. Member:: That spirit was there long before socialism.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They are now being told it will cost them more to make their contributions to the community. I would not expect to see this kind of legislation around election day, so I suppose we have a long way to go before we see another federal election.
This tax bears heaviest upon those who can least afford it. It will cause approximately a 2 per cent increase in the cost of gasoline. The man who motors 15,000 miles a year

will pay an extra $75 to $90 for his gasoline. Oil for home heating, as a result of the minister's proposal, will cost an extra $60 a year, again a regressive tax.
The principle of the equalization of gasoline prices in the country is one which commands general support, but the manner of achieving it boggles the mind when one thinks of the options available to the government. If they wanted to end the fixed write-off for corporations they could pick up another $500 million. If they wanted to end the investment tax credit they could get another $200 million. That would quickly provide the kind of revenues they are looking for.


An hon. Member:: It would cost a few jobs, I suppose, particularly in some areas.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It might cost the Liberals a few supporters, too.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Don't get nasty!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I suppose we have to weep most about the oil companies. These people I see every Saturday night tell me it costs a lot of money to drill in the Beaufort Sea, and that it is necessary to make big profits if they are to drill in this country. And the government has gone along with this point of view.
Poor old Imperial Oil! In 1971 its profit was $136 million; in 1972 it was $151 million; in 1973, $228 million, and in 1974, $290 million. We are facing a strike in this country and it is the oil companies which are on strike. They won't look for any more oil because $290 million is not enough. They need more! And they know where to look for more.
Take poor Gulf Oil. In 1971 it made a profit of $53 million; in 1972 profits rose to $64 million, and in 1973 the figure was $101 million. That little oil company is growing. It is doing very well. But not well enough to go out and explore for oil. They have to look after the shareholders before they do that.
The government has been put into a panic by the protests of the oil companies that their profits are so low they cannot afford to look for oil. I shall not pursue this aspect of the matter; I believe the topics I have dealt with so far have been pretty well covered by my hon. friends and others.
On July 9 the minister stated, as reported in Hansard at page 7409, that this tax would contribute significantly to energy conservation, an objective which the people of Canada support. I question that statement, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. gentleman is right when he said this was an objective Canadians support, but to say that raising the price of gasoline by ten cents is likely to lead to the conservation of gasoline is meaningless. As long as the automobile ethic is with us, people will continue to use gasoline. No one has challenged that ethic. No one has come forward with a concept capable of leading North American society away from the automobile.
The minister mentioned conservation three times in the course of his speech but nowhere did he tell us how we could promote conservation, save for this suggestion that if the price were high enough it would deter purchasers. In fact the record in the last ten years shows the opposite to be the case. The price of gasoline has been climbing steadi-
July 21, 1975

ly even in the absence of this last ten cents impost. On the other hand, consumption has been increasing at an even faster rate. The record gives the lie to the minister's argument that raising the price of gasoline would deter people from using it. Let us cease making spurious arguments and direct ourselves seriously to the issue of conservation.
The other gesture the minister made toward the conservation of energy was to remove the 5 per cent sales tax from insulation materials. This is a meaningless gesture, for the simple reason that the retailers themselves do not control the price of the product. The companies which produce this material control the price, so the tax relief will be gobbled up by the major companies which control production.


An hon. Member:: He is pointing at the Tories.


Paul Wyatt Dick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, an hon. member says he is pointing at the Tories. I notice the hon. member is speaking from a Tory bench. I thought he had joined our party. Are we on second reading, or have we reached the committee stage? Why is he not speaking from his own seat? He is trying to emulate Tom Cossitt.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I had permission from the hon. member, who is a great distance from me in philosophy, but his seat is so often vacant I thought it might be more comfortable to occupy it.


An hon. Member:: It is against the rules of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. I wish to ascertain from the hon. member whether in fact he is speaking from a seat which is not his own.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I normally speak from this position, which is half way between the two seats. Perhaps my voice carries over the seat of the hon. member-I am not sure.


Mr. Buchanan:: That is what you call the middle of the road.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I want to assure Your Honour, with the greatest respect, that I am not intending to violate the rules of the House by speaking from the wrong location, but it is easier for me to stand in the aisle.
If I can return to my train of thought, it is alleged that the removal of the 5 per cent sales tax is contributing to the conservation of home heating oil, but this is meaningless since most heating oil is consumed within the home. What we should have had is a complete reduction from income tax of the cost of insulating one's home, perhaps with some provision being made regarding the building of a home. Gestures like this are not encouraging the Canadian people to go along with meaningful conservation.
British Columbia has had a 55 mile an hour speed limit for I do not know how long, but this is unknown in the east. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) made certain suggestions regarding conservation in 1973, but in our house we were taking those steps
Excise Tax Act
five years before that. We are waiting for the rest of the country to catch up with us.
I suggest we should do something about the horsepower rating of cars that are imported into Canada. Some cars gulp gas at the rate of one gallon for every nine miles, some even every five miles. Surely the government has the courage to take a forward step in that regard. I notice my good friend from Oshawa-Whitby indicating skepticism at that remark, but again I think this would be a useful step to take.
We could also stop building these monolithic skyscrapers in the centre of our cities which make enormous demands on our energy resources, and redirect some of our priorities in more meaningful ways. We could do something even more important, and that is to implement a Liberal promise made in the last election regarding rapid transit. However, it looks as though my hon. friends on the other side are following a well known maxim, which is never to spoil a good promise by keeping it. The promise to provide rapid transit was a good one, and let me put it on the record, as reported in the Montreal Gazette. On June 17, 1974, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Toronto announced a $270 million program to aid public transit. He said:
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.
That would be a good start, and it is something that the Canadian people endorsed by the way they voted last time. I respect the way they voted. We took a shellacking in the last election, and we are perfectly ready to admit it. They wanted to take another chance on my hon. friends opposite because they wanted that kind of leadership, a meaningful approach to conservation and changing the lifestyle of this country with regard to the automobile. But what action does the government take? It puts a ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline. Is this the government's response to the over-consumption of energy in this country? I suggest it is a meaningless gesture.
One of the problems in this country is that consumption of energy is determined by those who advertise to a great extent. I am tired of looking at advertisements placed by hydro-electric companies urging people to buy a toaster or a refrigerator, and then on the next page there is a news report which says the same company requires another dam because it is short of power. We cannot have it both ways. Much of the energy demand in this country results from consumerism on the part of companies, and the oil companies continue to be among the worst offenders. We are letting demand determine supply, which is something we cannot do if we want to change our lifestyle.
This demand is artificially created and maintained to some extent by the oil companies, the electric companies, by people whose interest it is to see that over-consumption of energy continues. The government does not have the courage to interfere; it is still sitting there, living with Adam Smith. What the government must do is to enter the
7786

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
free enterprise system and artificially change the demand formula for the energy products. This requires leadership, something the government has yet to provide. I wait, and hope that at some time in the future-certainly it is not in this bill-a meaningful approach to energy conservation will be taken by changing the concept of supply and demand.
Let me refer to what one of our scions of industry, Mr. Twaits, has to say in an article intitled "Energy for Canadians".


Mr. Cullen:: He has retired.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I thought the hon. member said I had. According to retired Mr. Twaits time is not on our side, and policies must be set now if Canada is to have the energy it needs. He ascribes to the philosophy that demand is limitless but he does not accept the policy of conservation.
In March, 1975, the Science Council of Canada made a statement of which the government has not taken notice but which I recommend be read very carefully. In its report No. 23 it said this:
Traditionally Canada has allowed projections of energy demands to dictate policies for energy supplies; little thought has been given to the efficiency with which we use our energy resources.
What the Science Council is trying to say is that we should change our demand concept or we will not make any progress at all with energy conservation in Canada.
I suppose one of the tragic things about the whole question of conservation is that Canadians are squandering energy and we still have not got together in a conservation effort partly because of lack of leadership by the government. We are the second highest energy users in the world. We spend eight cents of every dollar on energy, or 18 cents of every dollar on energy using facilities. This waste in the eye of anyone from an energy poor country would be seen as a national scandal. How to we change this situation? We do not do it by playing a game with an excise bill and calling it a conservation bill.
This is purely a revenue producing measure. It is not a popular bill. It would never be introduced at a time when the government would have to stand or fall on its legislation. This brings us back to whether the government has the courage to do some unpopular things. I am not one who would always stand up and condemn a government for doing something that is not entirely popular. I do not think that would be a quality of leadership. The government should show once in a while that it can do that, rather than bring in such an excise tax bill.
The government should have a meaningful program, one in which perhaps there would be the necessity to take a look at rationing. It should be a program for the conservation of energy, in which high users would be charged less. At the present time high electricity consumers are given a reduced rate while the smaller consumers are charged the full rate. I plead with the government to show the kind of courage that is necessary to come forward with legislation which, although it might not be entirely popular, would be

legislation which looks beyond the next year, the next month, or the next election.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to say I was concerned a little by the effect the proposals made by the minister in this budget would have on the constituency I represent, as well as on the country as a whole.
As the minister went through the list of proposed expenditure slashes it became evident that there were areas which would definitely effect my constituency. He spoke of defence, the environment, trade and commerce, the farm Credit Corporation, and the Business Development Bank. I was forced to question some of his priorities.
Two days ago when we had the announcement of the scrapping of the urban demonstration project I received a phone call from the reporter of a local radio station who asked whether I did not consider, with hindsight, that the budget had been one that struck particularly hard at the constituency. I reminded him that it did not require any hindsight, and that I had told him exactly that on budget night in my remarks following the presentation of the budget.
We are debating an amendment which would hoist the bill and I believe this is in line with the thinking of a great many Canadians who, at the present time, are wondering why the minister bothered to bring in a budget at this time. We wonder at the thinking which allowed him to be trapped into presenting a budget at a time when it was neither wise nor necessary to do so.
I think the budget that was presented is indeed a strange one. The main purpose of it would seem to be to assist inflation because we find it lacks the courage to hit the issue of inflation. It demonstrates a lack of courage to bring in any effective income policy. The minister has presented proposals which in a time of inflation are inflationary. He brings in a ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline on top of the increase in the price of oil. This is a particular blow to a constituency and a province which depend on the tourist industry, because here we have a proposal guaranteed to reduce travel within the country and to discourage entry into the country by those who would drive across the border and contribute to our revenues in the west, or in any other part of Canada for that matter.
I should like to return to the question of the collapse of the urban demonstration program because it has been touted as one of the great savings in the budget. We are led to understand that close to $100 million is to be saved. That program originally was announced by the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford). At that time the present minister did not hold the portfolio. I have here the brochure that was prepared when the Minister of National Revenue was the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. At that time the program was announced with great fanfare and some very fine words. In the preface to the brochure we find these words:
The Canadian Urban Demonstration Program is one way of helping to ensure that as change comes, as it must, it will be in the direction we want. The program is designed to identify and highlight the best of the new ideas Canadians have for improving their communities. By encouraging and publicizing successful innovations across the country, a more genuine choice will be open to everyone who will affect our
July 21, 1975

urban future: elected representatives, officials, private interests and individual citizens.
It ends with these brave words:
I wholeheartedly encourage your participation in this exciting new program, through which Canadians can play an active role in the shaping of their future.
The history of the urban demonstration program is such that it certainly will not encourage Canadians, be they elected officials, representatives, or private citizens, to become terribly excited about any future program brought forward by the federal government with this sort of fanfare. Anyone who sees what has happened in respect of this program would be very discouraged about the prospect for the future.
I should also like to quote from the section of this brochure on financing the program, where we see this:
It is expected that the basic cost of demonstration projects will be financed through normal sources of funds: federal, provincial, municipal, private, or any combination of these. Additional support may be provided from a $100 million fund that will be disbursed over five years, beginning April 1, 1975. The fund is intended to be a catalyst and supplement, not a source of prime capital financing.
We know now that the operative words there are the "may be" words.
In spite of the reference to the $100 million fund, Canadians and particularly municipal officials who were lured into applying for money from this fund, found out that no such fund ever existed and that the savings are paper savings-that the financing was not there. There were 14 projects accepted initially. Then the minister sought to cancel the entire urban demonstration project in spite of the size, quality, and great words of the brochure.
The public might have been led to believe that there was a direct connection between the bringing down of the budget and the ending of the program. In fact there might be some Canadians who assume that that was the entire cause of the end of the program. But we know from various press reports that other factors were involved.
The first 14 projects selected for the program were screened by a now defunct advisory committee headed by Dr. Kenneth Hare of the University of Toronto, a former federal adviser on environmental research. In a statement reported in the Ottawa Journal of Monday, July 7, Allan O'Brien, the advisory committee member, is quoted at some length. The article says that the program's suspension did not particularly surprise him. He said he was disappointed because the program did have potential to develop and expand the federal government's role in government affairs, and he criticized the implementation process designed for the program, saying it had not been thought through carefully enough. That, of course, is not the first bit of government business in recent years that has been announced prior to its being thought through carefully. He repeated that the advisory committee had been in limbo for some weeks while federal officials tried to figure out what its function should be in the future.
So when we learn that the entire program has been scrapped we can be a little skeptical on this side of the House in assuming it was scrapped because of anything that came out of the budget. I think the program was in a
Excise Tax Act
mess and that the decision, which had been hailed as being a very tough one on the part of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), was perhaps not all that tough.
When we look at the highlights of the budget, on page 5 of that handy little brochure issued along with the budget, we find the section on the control of government expenditures, reductions and postponements, indicating they will be applied to almost all government departments and agencies, and some of these are singled out for special mention. They are Transport, Defence, Public Works, Environment, External Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Secretary of State and other departments, Petro-Canada, the Federal Business Development Bank, the federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation, the Farm Credit Corporation, and others, but there is no mention of Urban Affairs, and no mention of the urban demonstration program. It seems to me very strange that if at the time it was prepared the people preparing it knew that the entire urban demonstration program was going to be slashed, there was not even a hint in the list of priorities for reducing federal expenditures.
The minister, in announcing the ending of the urban demonstration program, called it a suspension, but I think we can safely assume that it has been ended and will not be resurrected, at least until it serves the government's purposes to resurrect it. I suggest that the time for its resurrection will come during the next federal election campaign-which will undoubtedly be twice as expansionary as the one we had a year ago when all kinds of programs were being announced week by week as we approached July 8. Until then I believe the urban demonstration program is dead.
The total figure of the amount being saved is illusory because some 200 projects have been returned to the people who submitted them. I suggest that the municipalities and organizations which submitted these projects have made considerable expenditures in researching and preparing the applications to the federal government, and I find it utterly reprehensible that a government, which less than a year ago announced a project and urged, demanded, encouraged and incited municipalities across the country to apply for it, when it received the applications, withdrew the project.
An enormous waste is taking place in this country simply because senior levels of government have not seen fit to work out a formula whereby municipalities would share in the total tax cut in relation to the expenditures that are demanded of them. These expenditures are made mandatory by the senior levels of government, and yet the municipalities have to cover the total cost.
I feel very strongly about this, and I believe that in future before the federal government prepares a program of this nature and of this magnitude, and announces a fund of $100 million to finance it, whether it be over one year or over five years, it should have some sort of insurance program or be bonded so that the municipalities which apply in good faith, and submit applications meeting all the criteria of the program, could expect their applications to be taken seriously and be given the attention they deserve.
29669 -lO1/^

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
There is a great waste when the federal government makes a sudden decision through which the entire effort that has gone into preparing applications is wasted and the program is scrapped. In many cases these projects are absolutely vital if we are to find a way toward solving some of the problems that beset the municipalities of this country. The federal government must give leadership and direction, which in this case it has abandoned completely and in haste to the detriment of the municipalities in Canada.
As we look through the bill we find one or two other areas which deserve comment. With regard to the tax on gasoline the government has left itself open to demands for refunds. As one reads the bill one finds considerable attention paid to individuals or corporations using gasoline on a business basis. I suspect it would be too much to expect of the government an extension of the system whereby agricultural gasoline would be coloured purple and farmers could use gasoline of the same grade in their machinery, thus avoiding the whole complicated business of rebates. One has to give the government some credit for its concern that this money be rebated, but one questions the whole proposal.
I notice nothing in the cancellation of the urban demonstration program to suggest that anything would be rebated to municipalities which submitted the 200 proposals. There is no mention of a rebate to mayors, aldermen, city engineers, and planners for the time they put into preparing those proposals that were scrapped so abruptly. I would suggest to the federal government that municipalities are made up of people, and people serve as mayors and aldermen of municipalities. They deserve better treatment than they have had from the government in the budget.
One suspects that we will have a very complicated few years as people submit their applications for rebates. Hon. members know the amount of mail we will receive from people who will be asking what happened to their rebates. They will wonder why they did not deserve a rebate, and we will find ourselves, as the ombudsmen of the people, sorting our way through unlimited numbers of applications for investigation of the whole question of the rebate. I can think of nothing which is more guaranteed to clog the mail, to waste time, to add expense and to save very little, in what is supposed to be a proposal to save gasoline and to push people toward rapid transit. I would suggest that although there has been a move to the cities and a great urbanization of this land, the government and the Minister of Finance should think very carefully before applying blanket taxes clear across the country which can be of no use in areas of the country which are decades away from any kind of rapid transit whatsoever.
It is doubtful whether this measure will accomplish anything in the urban centres in terms of increasing the development of rapid transit. It is strange indeed that as the ten cents per gallon tax is claimed to be for that very purpose, the urban demonstration project, which in many of its proposals was designed to hasten the development of alternate means of transit in the cities, should have been abandoned at the same time as the tax was imposed. Therefore, if ever there was an example of one arm of government destroying the efforts of another arm, it was

in the decision to abandon the urban demonstration program at the same time as the Minister of Finance imposed his ten cents tax on the people of this country.
One notices too that it is required of businessmen dealing with the gasoline to, and I quote:
-keep records and books of account in English or French at his place of business in Canada in such form and containing such information as will enable the amount of taxes or other sums that should have been paid or collected, the amount of stamps that should have been affixed or cancelled, or the amount, if any, that should have been paid or that is payable to him, to be determined.
There is no mention of compensating businessmen for that extra effort on behalf of the federal government. I do not know how many hon. members have been reading the mandate forms for May which have come in from small businessmen across this country, but it has been repeated over and over again, in comments which have been written in on them, that the federal government expects a small businessman not only to pay the taxes but to collect the money, and to do the endless hours of bookwork, without recompense or adequate compensation from the federal government. We will now have one more example of this, and there is a great revolt building in this country among those people who are opposed to being called upon to do the bookwork for the federal government. They are called upon to put in time, and occasionally to hire other people who are necessary because of the decision of the federal government to do this in an awkward and complex way which forces the businessman at the bottom level to keep records and books for the federal government. That is not good enough.
Finally, I would like to refer to one more part of the bill wherein the minister provides, and I quote:
Thermal insulation materials designed exclusively for insulation of buildings; storm doors and storm windows for buildings; articles and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture or production thereof
Will be exempt from the excise tax which remains from what had been an 11 per cent tax on building materials. On budget night I was not listening to the minister very carefully at this particular point, and I honestly believed that he had said that the 5 per cent tax was being removed from building materials. That is a move we on this side of the House have long advocated, and which is so eminently sensible that I could not believe any other course of action was being proposed. I went on the air back home in a telephone interview and said that the 5 per cent tax had been removed and that at last we had seen the end of that, only to learn to my surprise and horror that it was nothing of the kind.
Goodness knows I should be beyond the stage of expecting anything so sensible, straightforward, simple, so welcome to the lumber industry of British Columbia and so essential to the economy of the constituency I represent, which relies heavily on the lumber industry, as a complete removal of the last shreds of the unhappy and inflationary tax on building materials which has frustrated the economy and the businesses of this country for so long. I should have known that it could not and would not be done by the administration opposite, but I suppose it is the eternal optimism in my nature which leads me to believe that the government would actually do something very sensible.
July 21, 1975

When I heard 5 per cent and building materials in the same sentence on budget night, I leapt to the conclusion which I hoped the minister would have been worthy of but of which he was not. Instead, we have this tiny little removal which goes along with the window dressing which bedecks the entire budget, a suggestion that basically the government is endeavouring to save our fuel resources when it has not begun to tackle that; a suggestion that it is fighting inflation when it has not begun to tackle that.
The budget failed completely to tackle the problems which beset this country, and because in the Excise Tax Act it fails to do anything sensible it has aroused the people of this country as few measures this government has undertaken for many years have done.
I support the amendment which would hoist this bill for six months, and I hope forever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debate on Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, with a great deal of interest. Much has been said about the lack of equity in this bill, and while I do not want to repeat many of the arguments I think it would be useful to summarize some of the effects of this bill.
Usually one can see bad effects of a particular piece of legislation, and generally it is easy to see that some segment of society will benefit. In the case of Bill C-66 it is easy to see that the bad effects will be felt by many. The bad effects will be felt by workers who are forced to drive to work because of shift work, because of a lack of public transit, or because they live in the suburbs.
Cities will suffer because there will be increased pressure to locate one's residence close to the work location and close to existing public transit systems. Businesses will also suffer, particularly the small businessman who may be a marginal operator. This small business category also includes farmers, fishermen, travelling salesmen, and neighbourhood servicemen. Although the small businessman will get relief in the form of a rebate of his tax, he will have to bear the additional costs of carrying the amount on his books from the time the tax is paid at the gas pump until his refund comes, months later.
Furthermore, the small businessman will have to bear the added cost of accounting for the tax, completing an additional complex government tax form every time he has to apply for the rebate, and of calculating the additional income tax payable on the rebate after it is received and included in income. I will have more to say about the income tax effects of the bill later.
Also feeling the adverse effects will be senior citizens, the physically handicapped, and people who cannot take advantage of public transit for a variety of reasons.
It may be asked who will benefit from this bill. Will it be big business? I say no. They will incur extra costs in financing the huge extra amounts they must pay at the pumps. They will incur extra staff costs for filing claims and generally overseeing this taxation exercise.
Excise Tax Act
It is interesting to note that the government suddenly woke up to the fact that business would be getting an advantage under the original proposal, so now the rebate will be required to be included in income for tax purposes.
Will the oil companies benefit? No. The president of a major oil company said recently:
No matter what sort of face the government tries to put on it, the important thing for the public to realize is that none of the funds resulting from the new ten cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline or the $1.50 per barrel crude oil price increase will go to the oil companies which need the money for exploration.
Will the public generally see any benefit from this bill? No again. As usual the public will be paying and the government will be spending. The government's proposal to spend exploration dollars through its new Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, was of course the subject of long debate in this House recently.
Who will benefit then? It is no surprise that it will be the government and the bureaucrats. The government has gained a huge new source of revenue at the expense of the individual working Canadian. The bureaucrats have gained a huge new bureaucracy to collect and administer the tax, much of which will be refunded under the expemption provisions.
I think it may be interesting to note what the minister said in his budget speech in June. He said:
Gasoline purchasers from the commercial, industrial, resource and government sectors will be able to recover the tax. For example, refunds will be available on gasoline used for commercial trucking, for service vehicles, taxis and buses. Similarly, the tax will be refunded on gasoline used in farm vehicles and fishermen's boats. The tax on gasoline used for construction or industrial purposes, or in oil and gas, mining or forestry industries, will be refundable. Gasoline purchased by governments, including municipal, are also outside the scope of the tax.
Imagine what proportion of gasoline in this country is used by those exempted-the taxi industry, the trucking industry, buses, service vehicles, farm vehicles, the construction industry, general industry, the extractive industries, and governments at all levels. I would guess that the proportion would be as high as 80 per cent, but the government has given us no indication of the percentage of use it expects to be exempted from the tax.
The government claims that the ten cents tax is in part a conservation measure. As with the equity arguments, there seems to be no unanimity on that. In a recent speech in Ottawa the Liberal member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) said:
As a conservation device, the new excise tax is unrealistic and is also unfair to millions of Canadians. It implies a government view that for essential family purposes like food shopping and visits to physicians, can turn to alternative forms of public transit instead.
In the same speech he said later:
The only practical way for millions of Canadians to travel to and from work is by car. They either have no adequate rapid transit-or no rapid transit at all-available to them. None will exist for many years in most urban areas. And in some areas, the remote parts of the country and smaller cities and towns, none will likely ever be constructed.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, not all of the opposition is on this side of the House.
Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) said that the tax is an unpopular one and that this legislation is not popular legislation. Many mem-

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
bers on the government side are silent on this issue and their electors will wonder why.
I was interested to see a letter in the Globe and Mail this morning from a Liberal member of parliament who shall mercifully go unnamed at this moment. He received many letters from constituents complaining about gasoline prices-"not so much about the ten cents tax" he wrote, although that tax was clearly part of the complaints. He had written to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in part as follows:
What is so irritating to the people of this region is not the current price level or even the ten cents per gallon excise tax but rather the huge differential in prices.
This Liberal M.P. requested that an inquiry be initiated to determine the reasons for these wide variations. Perhaps he thinks the federal government should just set the price of gasoline at the pump instead of just applying the unpopular ten cents tax.


An hon. Member:: You should read it all.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I read it all this morning, but I think the important part is adequately covered right now.
Not only are constituents unhappy with this bill, action such as this in Bill C-66 does not promote good will with the provinces. Ontario, for example, has moved to implement a temporary freeze on gasoline prices, and other provinces may follow. Fearing a slump in the demand for automobiles produced in North America and the lay-offs that would result, Ontario removed its 5 per cent sales tax on North American produced automobiles for the rest of 1975.
The federal government seems to have ignored regional differences in other ways too. The amounts being denied the producing provinces by the imposition of a lower than market price on fuel does not help the residents of nonproducing provinces because they are being called upon to pay a price per gallon nearly the same as it would be if the world price were paid for crude oil. The difference is that the extra money paid is going to the government coffers and not being used to explore for more oil supplies or to encourage more enterprise in the petroleum industry. Nor is it benefiting the provinces that have the constitutional right to the energy.
I should like to look at the detailed workings of the government proposals now. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in answer to some opposition criticism in the House, has asked the question, "How would you do it?"
If we were to accept that the government needed a huge increase in its tax revenues, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance already had the tools at his disposal to carry out his program without resorting to this ten cents per gallon "refundable-if-you're-lucky" tax. But if its interest was in the conservation of resources, the senior government could have used its persuasive powers to reduce speed limits on a nation-wide basis. Slower speed is a proven saver of gasoline and lives, as shown by the experience in the United States.
The federal government has not been hesitant in passing laws about automobile safety and emission controls. It certainly has the power to take other conservation measures such as limiting engine size or even requiring the
[Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra).}
installation of mechanical "governors" on automobiles to limit speed.
Before suggesting further government action such as the foregoing I would point out that the government's inappropriate and ineffective attempts at conservation would be unnecessary except for the fact that the government has enormously reduced the capability of the petroleum industry by its interference with such measures as the disallowance of provincial royalties as a legitimate business expense in arriving at taxable income; the artificial setting of wellhead prices below world market levels; the setting up of a national petroleum corporation; and the passing of tax rules favouring foreign investment in petroleum exploration.
Before anyone jumps up to say that I favour Canadians paying higher prices for gasoline, let me remind the House that the government's proposals will have exactly the same impact on taxpayers as would a world market wellhead price. The money all comes from the Canadian taxpayer. If the government pretends otherwise, it is deluding you.
The past few remarks refer only to conservation aspects. The Minister of Finance seems to have forgotten that the government has a rather large collection agency known as the Income Tax Department, which has grown enormously in order to deal with the Trudeau government's principles of simplicity and equity in regular income tax matters. Nobody in authority has any idea what happened to the simplicity or equity. The task of this department will be expanded to include the collecting and refunding of the ten cents per gallon tax. Imagine the addition to the bureaucracy that will be required to handle the processing of all the claims. Don't forget that every exemption will result in a monthly rebate to be processed.
On the other hand, if the government would admit that the sole or main purpose of the tax is to produce revenue, and I am not advocating a tax increase when I say this, just think how simple it would have been to raise this amount of tax revenue by increasing the rate of income tax by a point or a fraction of a point.
Let us look at the result of such a move, and who would be hurt or helped. First, Canadians on very low incomes, including many retired people who are among the hardest hit, would not incur any cost at all since their incomes fall below the taxable level. Second, Canadians not entitled to any rebate, including industrial and office workers, and physically handicapped people, would pay a little more income tax instead of a little more in excise tax, and the net result there would be about the same. And the load would be shared more equitably since the amount would be determined by income level instead of by the number of miles driven to work or to the grocery store. Third, the effect on businesses would be about the same as for wage earners if the government decided to increase income taxes instead of taxing gasoline. That is, business would pay a larger and fairer share of the national revenue. Businessmen, after all, are taxpayers, too, and if Canada needs more revenue they should be required to pay their share.
July 21, 1975

Under the budget proposals contained in this bill the ten cents per gallon tax is a complete washout for corporations and for businessmen, no matter what their marginal rate of tax is. Because the ten cents per gallon paid at the pump is deductible in computing taxable income, the net cost to the businessmen at a 50 per cent marginal rate is an extra five cents. When the ten cents rebate is finally received it must be included as taxable income, and five cents income tax must be paid, leaving a net refund of five cents. Therefore, we can see a net five cents outlay and a net five cents rebate, bringing a washout effect. But of course the corporate bureaucracy will have grown in order to deal with the filing of claims for rebates and the general recording of and accounting for these additional and completely unnecessary transactions. This increase in corporate staff will, or course, be mirrored by the huge increases in the government bureaucracy which will handle its side of the collections, the administration, and rebates. Truly, the taxpayer will be the loser on all fronts.
My remarks today, Mr. Speaker, have been specifically directed to clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Bill C-66. This is not meant to indicate any agreement on my part with clauses 2 and 3 which will increase the air transportation tax from 5 per cent to 8 per cent on flights to the United States, and will double the air transportation tax to $10 on flights to other countries. I might only point out that this can hardly be construed as an anti-inflationary move by a concerned government. And, as with the oil industry, the airline companies, already hard pressed by rising costs, will not receive any of the increases in the fares created by this tax.
Clause 4 is perhaps a small concession to the taxpayer. We find that, while dipping into the taxpayer's pocket for taxes on gasoline and air transport, the government will make it easier for the taxpayer to drown his sorrows. It will reduce the excise tax on wines by 20 cents or 40 cents per gallon, depending on alcohol content. Perhaps the only good thing about this bill may be that, under clause 4, the stronger the wine is and the more you drink of it, the more taxes you will save.
All the provisions of this bill give credence to the good intentions of the minister and the benevolent Liberal government. Their fault is in the execution of their aims, not in their desire to be big brother to all Canadians.
In order to convince Canadians what good fellows they are, the government has been trying to fool us into believing that the Liberals are a united party, the only truly national party in Canada. But now the official report on the 1974 election results, released last week by the Chief Electoral Officer, shows that the Liberal party led the pools in only four of Canada's 12 provinces and territories, whereas the Progressive Conservative party led in seven of those 12 jurisdictions. Furthermore, whereas the Progressive Conservatives came second in five jurisdictions, compared to the Liberal party's six second places, the government was embarrassed to finish third in one province and one territory. Furthermore, the Liberals can boast of holding the reins in only three of Canada's ten provinces. Without question these statistics show that the Progressive Conservative party is the only national party in Canada.
Excise Tax Act


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, the budget was introduced almost a month ago, and the budget has made necessary the introduction of this excise tax bill.
Last June 23 I personally experienced two apparently unrelated events here in Ottawa. For the first time in my life I paid 20 cents to use a pay telephone. Second, I saw the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduce a summer budget. These two events are very much related, of course, since both show Canada's extreme situation relating to inflation, the cost of living, and costs of production.
A month after budget day, the real blockbuster of that budget comes in Bill C-66, which of course is the new ten cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline used for personal consumption. I shall talk mainly about that aspect.
In my opinion, this tax is intended to be a straight revenue producer for the government. It remains to be seen how efficient it will be in view of the complex and expensive administration and refunding procedure which will need to be established. It will generate some $350 million in the remainder of the present fiscal year and thereafter will generate over half a billion dollars annually. This figure implies that some five and a quarter billion gallons of gasoline sold in Canada will be taxable under this new provision. Based on 1974 gasoline sales of seven and a third billion gallons, this means more than 70 per cent of gasoline consumed in Canada will be taxable in the personal or pleasure category.
Those entitled to a refund are estimated to be between 750,000 and one million people, but owing to multiple claims for refunds that are expected this year, this could total $170 million. That is approximately $1 refunded for every $3 collected. Surely it is a most inefficient and expensive tax to collect.
The government has already endorsed a single price system for petroleum products on a geographic area basis, whereas this bill establishes a two price system based on consumption. Therefore this will most certainly create additional burdens on certain sectors of the Canadian economy.
As we are now in the middle of our tourist season, this is where the first impact will be. In fact it is already being noticed. Already there are clear indications that Canadians who had planned a truly Canadian vacation by car have had to shorten their trip or re-route them to the United States where there is cheaper gasoline, cheaper lodging, and cheaper food. This is Canada's loss, of course, in more than just the monetary sense. It follows that this ten cents tax will definitely curtail our United States tourist friends from spending their vacations in Canada.
We in western Canada will feel the impact of this tax relatively more because of two main factors; less public transit, and longer distances that are travelled on the prairies, mostly by farmers. These longer distance costs should be allowed for in this bill, but they probably will not be. They will be included in the "personal use" category.
I want to give a personal example. From my home on my cattle ranch it is a 20 mile trip just to get my mail. There

July 21, 1975
Excise Tax Act
are no rural deliveries. It is a 100 mile trip to do business in either Medicine Hat or Maple Creek, such as for groceries, haying supplies, or some emergency welding. There was a time when some of these trips were made with horses, but that is very seldom done now. My point is that under prairie conditions cars are a necessity, not a luxury. This tax could very well perpetuate regional inequities in our more sparsely populated areas.
Whether the tax will result in some energy conservation remains to be seen. I am inclined to agree with the Canadian Automobile Association when they suggest, and I quote:
Imposing excessive taxation under the guise of energy conservation and forcing motorists to utilize public transportation is unacceptable. With 85 per cent of all passenger trips in all Canada undertaken by automobiles, and the majority of Canadians requiring their car for transportation to work, it is impractical to force Canadians into public transportation by economic sanctions.
I would add, especially on the wide open spaces out west.
There will be some reduced consumption of fuel, I am sure. After all, a ten cents per gallon increase is a record tax bite. It will get some results. However, if we are realistic we must realize that Canada cannot conserve enough to ensure adequate supplies for the future. That can only come from a vigorously stimulated exploration and development policy. The new budget will probably increase some exploration. However, one estimate of a $40 million release to the industry is only enough to drill one offshore well in the high Arctic.
The budget speech points out that Canadian oil export tax revenues have fallen off while oil import subsidies have risen, hence the need for this gasoline excise tax. The two are obviously related, but not to the extent suggested by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in his letter which appeared in last Saturday's Ottawa Journal. The letter is headlined "Oil firm's ads were misleading." The minister stated, and I quote:
The ad, headlined "Here's where your money goes for those gasoline price increases", refers first to the 10-cent excise tax on a gallon of gasoline announced in the June 23 budget and proclaims: "100 per cent to the federal government."
That is 100 per cent wrong. Not a penny of that 10 cents will go to the federal government. The purpose of the tax is to keep home heating costs down by permitting the continuance of the oil import compensation program. The revenue-all the revenue-from this tax will pass to consumers in Eastern Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces in the form of reduced prices for petroleum products, including home heating oil.
I am sorry the minister is not here tonight. I would be tempted to say to him "Come now, Mr. Minister, by the same token I suppose not a penny of my income tax goes to the federal government. It is just some sort of a miracle transfer to pay my share of federal welfare, unemployment insurance costs, pensions, and so on." I suggest a fair percentage of that ten cents will be required to pay the administration costs of this tax, and the government is collecting every cent of it. Who is misleading whom?
In summing up my comments on this ten cents excise tax portion of this bill I want to say it is the abruptness and the magnitude of the tax that stagger and hurt so many Canadians. As crude oil prices move up it is inevitable that gasoline prices must also move up some, but could not the tax have been staged a little more humanely,

such as over at least two years? This ten cents blockbuster could very well stampede car buyers away from the bigger models to the compacts and the mini-compacts, and in so doing create undue problems in the auto industry.
If I may, I want to comment very briefly on some other aspects of the bill.
I should like to associate myself with many others in this debate who have commended the Minister of Finance on removing the 5 per cent tax on building insulation materials. At the same time I ask the very logical question: why not from all building materials? There never was a better opportunity to do something to improve the serious housing situation.
In addition I will mention one very specific and relatively small budget item-removing last year's excise tax on domestic wine. It is strange indeed that the minister should have zeroed in on this one item, both in the budget and in the bill before us, and that no mention at all should be made about the serious tariff and quota problems at the U.S. border involving the Canadian cattle industry.
I have a final comment relating to another very specific budget item-it may not be referred to in the bill before us, but I will mention it only briefly. The rate of return on government annuities is to be increased. This is very good news, of course, but it is news which is long overdue. Could the minister or, in his absence, the parliamentary secretary, announce very soon what the new rate will be? Will there be a COLA clause? Will this change be retroactive? I am getting letters concerning these three questions.
In conclusion I wish to say I fully support my leader's amendment to this bill giving it the hoist to you-know-where. I would urge hon. members on both sides of the House to go home to their ridings during the summer recess, whenever it comes, and learn the real grass roots impact of this measure by talking to their constituents about what Bill C-66 will do. I am referring mainly to the ten cents a gallon excise tax.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to enter this debate and speak in support of the amendment put forward by my leader some days ago to this bill, Bill C-66, which constitutes an assembly of financial arrangements resulting from the budget. The measures we are asked to approve will be of no benefit to the Canadian economy or to the Canadian people and their future welfare.
I think the budget, and Bill C-66 which emanates from it, are best described by an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on June 24, the day after the budget was brought down. That paper describes it as a "tinkering budget". The heading reads: "The budget tinkers again". The writer describes it as a failure of leadership in a situation which has rapidly deteriorated. And it has deteriorated since then. Canadian affairs are in a state of decline. Indeed, I would not be at all surprised to see this country faced with a financial crisis before the snow flies in December. I hope this does not happen, but the general condition of our economy as reflected in the various departments and the various services the government is attempting to carry on presents a picture in which I can
July 21, 1975

see nothing but deficits and a very poor outlook. This is why I would not be surprised to see a financial crisis before the fall.
The Globe and Mail continues on a sad note:
-if the upturn ever does come, Canada, with first year new contract wage settlements averaging 19.2 per cent will simply not be in a position to compete.
This places us in a very sad situation. I continue to quote from this leading article:
The Finance Minister says he faced three dilemmas in shaping this budget-inflation, unemployment, energy. About inflation he does virtually nothing. His promise of federal spending cuts of $1 billion this fiscal year must be as suspect as all his other figures. He does not even promise to freeze the growth of an overgrown civil service; only to reduce its rate of growth.
I shall quote no further from this editorial except for the final sentence, which reads as follows:
What this budget says is that Canada is in deep trouble and virtually leaderless.
To my mind this is a sad situation for us to be in after the Canadian people have given the government such a generous mandate. I refer again to the phrase I quoted from the Globe and Mail-that Canada should be virtually leaderless.
We have the spectacle before us of a government which imposes a ten cents a gallon surtax on gasoline and in the same stroke of the pen removes the tax from wine. What could be more ridiculous? That is one for the books. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that this is the third time in a row when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has not chosen to appear in the House to defend himself after having misled the House.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of the minister that he is attending the wake of the late hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott. That is why he is not in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would draw to the attention of hon. members that such exchanges are not in order during the adjournment debate. The hon. member has seven minutes in which to make his point, and the parliamentary secretary has three minutes in which to reply.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am sure the minister does have an unavoidable engagement but it would have been quite easy to
Adjournment Debate
ask that the debate which is to take place tonight be held over until another occasion when the minister could appear. I say this because I have stated three times in a row that the minister had misled the House. The situation to which I shall refer hon. members is one in which the minister, after being prodded twice, admitted he misled the House. I believe hon. members are entitled to have the minister appear and explain why he has misled them in the way he has.
The Minister of Finance is no longer credible. He has chosen to bring in budgets and make statements in the House without giving members the benefit of the forecasts upon which he is basing his statements and budgets. Let me refer to a question that I put to the minister in the House on July 18, as reported at page 7655 of Hansard:
As the minister has repeatedly stated that he has always been frank with the Canadian people, and in view of the anticipated high inflation rates, would the minister be frank enough to tell the House and the people what he anticipates will be the real rate of growth in Canada in the current year, a figure he gave in each of his four budgets for each year but not in his June 23 effort?
The minister replied:
If the hon. gentleman would read the budget speech carefully he would find that I estimated the rate of growth at somewhere between zero and one per cent.
At three o'clock that day I rose on a point of order to point out that no place in the budget of June 23 is such a statement made by the Minister of Finance, to which he replied that he would send me the reference. Again the following day I rose on a point of order to point out that I had not received the reference to which the minister referred, and suggested that perhaps under pressure the minister had mistaken his answer with a statement he made to the first ministers' conference, at which time he commented on the poor growth in the gross national product in the current year. At my second prodding the minister then admitted, as reported at page 7711 of Hansard for July 18:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is perfectly correct. Those numbers were given in the speech I made at the federal-provincial conference which was tabled in the House by my parliamentary secretary, and the budget reflected those figures.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is wrong again. The figure that he gave on Thursday of last week of zero to one per cent real growth in the economy for 1975 was not the figure that he used at the federal-provincial conference to which he has now referred. Perhaps we can understand why it is that the minister has chosen to fail to give us an inflation rate for the country, and has failed to give us the unemployment rate anticipated by his department, and has now failed to give us the real growth rate, when we check the record of his previous forecasts. In short, we find that the minister has muffed every forecast that he has never given in a budget concerning real growth in Canada.
If hon. members review the May 8, 1972, budget they will find that the minister predicted in the 1972 year under review that the growth would be 6 to 6l/2 per cent; the actual growth was 5.8 per cent. In the February, 1973, budget which predicted that the real growth would be in the order of 7 per cent, it turned out to be 6.8 per cent. On

July 21, 1975
Adjournment Debate
May 6, 1974, he stated that the real rate of growth would be 5 per cent higher in 1974 than 1973; the real growth was 2.8 per cent. In the November 18 budget, on which many members of the House spoke, the Minister of Finance predicted growth this year would be 4 per cent; we now find after the tabling of the budget on June 23 that the minister did not even have the courage to tell us on what real growth figures that budget was based.
The minister did not have the courage to tell us the figures because he knows that the figures are growing worse and worse month by month. According to the recent forcast of the Conference Board of Canada the gross national product in real terms is expected to decline by approximately .6 per cent in 1975 over 1974.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, here we have a Minister of Finance assuring us on November 18 that the real growth in the economy of Canada in 1975 would be 4 per cent; he does not have the courage to tell us what it is going to be today; yet we find the Conference Board of Canada predicting a negative growth of .6 per cent. Having misled the House on two former occasions the minister has not had the courage to come to the House and explain why he so misled the members of the House.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, one is reminded of the saying that none are so blind as those who will not see. Here we have an example of the phrase, much ado about nothing. The minister conceded in the House that when he referred to the fact that the comments he made were contained in the budget speech they were contained in the papers that were tabled by me on his behalf in respect of the federal-provincial conference. There was no suggestion of hiding anything.
The question concerns the prospective real rate of growth in Canada in 1975. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said in this House on July 17 that he estimated the rate of growth at somewhere between zero and one per cent. The main forces in play were set out in the budget, but it may be helpful to the House for me to recall them and bring them up to date. When all the data is in, the rate of output in Canada in the first half of 1975 will almost certainly be recorded as smaller than it was on the average in the last half of 1974. But real growth in output is expected to resume in the second half of this year.
Much of the most important factor in the slowdown in real output in Canada has been the rather large and sharp recession abroad, particularly that in the United States. But now, with every passing day, the prospect of economic recovery in the United States and Japan in the second half of the year appears more likely, along with at least a cessation of the decline in output in western Europe. These are powerful forces working toward increase in the real level of Canada's exports in the second half of 1975.
The indicators of consumer confidence in Canada did not fall to anything like the low levels they reached in the United States in the last year; and they are now strengthening. Automobile sales held up remarkably well in Canada compared with the United States during the last nine months. There is every prospect that real demand for consumer goods and services will grow moderately over the next six months. In most recent months one of the

depressing factors on production in Canada has been the correction of what had developed as an excess inventory position. The correction needed in Canada has been much smaller than in the United States, and the process of correction is well advanced. Accordingly, before the end of this calendar year at least moderate inventory rebuilding should be under way. Crop reports are reasonably good to date, though there are some worries about sufficient moisture to produce good harvests.
All these factors add up to a realistic prospect of positive real growth in Canada in the second half of the year, barring very severe work stoppages, and bad weather. With this second half growth to offset the real decline in the first half, we expect the year as a whole to show a rate of growth over 1974 of the order of one half of one per cent.
I do not think it was necessary for the minister to be here to make that statement again for the edification of the hon. member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It was never made before.


MANPOWER-OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH AND STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS-REQUEST FOR EXPANSION
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, on June 18 I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) relating to the fact that the unemployment rate for those citizens of Canada in the age bracket between 14 and 25 had reached serious proportions, particularly among students who were trying to find funds to increase their education.
I asked the minister whether he would take action in the immediate future to expand the programs which were already in existence under the student summer employment program for 1975. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I appear here tonight in view of the fact that I cannot accept the answer given by the minister wherein he indicated that his government had considerably increased the allocation to the student summer employment program. Even though I must accept his answer to a certain extent, I cannot accept the statement that the government is doing everything possible to deal with the problem, particularly with the means available under the student summer employment program.
I want to refer to only two phases of the 22 programs designed to provide opportunities to Canadian youth. I refer to the cadet training program and the militia or reserve training under the Department of National Defence. Under these two programs some $700,000 will be allocated to cadet training, and $4.2 million to the reserve forces or militia training. I might say that the Government of Canada is prepared to allocate funds amounting to some $5 million, but it is ignorant of the fact that many thousands of our young people are denied the opportunity of taking advantage of the cadet and militia movement under the aegis of the Department of National Defence.
I might say, as an experienced advocate of the Department of National Defence, that I am sorry to see that the
July 21, 1975

Government of Canada in directing the Department of National Defence is not taking advantage of its capability of providing leadership, esprit de corps and comradeship even though the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and the chief of our armed forces keep repeating year by year that the Department of National Defence will build up the armed forces of our nation in peacetime through the militia and the cadet services. But over the years nothing has been done, only lip service has been paid to the goal. Even though the government has the capability of providing leadership and instilling esprit de corps and comradeship in our youth, I can only say that more consideration should be given to providing greater initiative with the aim of building a better future for Canada. I ask the parliamentary secretary to reply to my question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, like many other hon. members, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has been a strong advocate of the role that students could play in the summer program of the Department of National Defence. At the same time I have to say that he threw me a slight curve because his question tonight was initially directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and I think it is more appropriate that I respond on behalf of that minister. Perhaps he can put another question on another "late show" to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson).
The hon. member will recall that the question of growing youth unemployment and the possibility of increasing funds available to the OFY program in order to combat the problem was dealt with in the House on February 24, 1975. At that time the minister pointed out that a total of $67.1 million had been set aside for the federal government's Student Summer Employment and Activities Program (SSEAP), of which $27.5 million had been allotted to OFY, the largest recipient program.
The allocation to the OFY program, as with the allocation to the other components of SSEAP, was set after applying statistics of past demand and trends to the estimated youth employment situation. After a review of the allocation to the 1975 program in light of increases in the rate of student unemployment, an additional $13.4 million was allotted to SSEAP in an effort to compensate for such increases. Of these additional funds, $8.9 million was used to augment the OFY budget, allowing for the creation of 7,000 extra jobs under that program. With this considerable increase in funds, more than 250,000 student jobs have been created either directly or indirectly within the framework of SSEAP, a total of 27,000 of them within the OFY program.
With the instigation of such measures to deal with the problem of student unemployment, the minister is satisfied that the problem has been significantly alleviated, and no expansion of OFY or SSEAP is foreseen at the present time.
With respect to the comments of the hon. member directed to the Minister of National Defence, perhaps we can get together again some night, and I will have a good answer for the hon. member on that one as well.
Adjournment Debate


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ATTEMPT TO EXPEL ISRAEL FROM UNITED NATIONS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) what Canada's answer would be to the 50 states, members of the United Nations, who intend to seek to expel Israel from the General Assembly this fall. I wanted a clear statement from him of unwavering support for Israel, whatever the pressures. The minister has given Israel that support. He went on to tie his answer to the policy declaration of the government respecting admission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to Canada this fall to the scheduled UN crime conference which Canada is to host in Toronto. Wisely the conference is to be postponed until Canada is satisfied that a technical conference of the sort which this is intended to be will not be used as a weapon in the war to eliminate Israel.
The minister also committed himself and the government to contribute what he can by reducing tensions in the Middle East. The minister has taken the right course. I was surprised that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), would try to minimize the role Canada can play in this matter. In effect he was belittling and downgrading the position of our country and the position we can take in resolving the tension in the Middle East. We of course are not the United States, we are Canada, but we are respected in the Middle East by all parties, and for our support in the past for the easing of tensions we deserve to be heard by the parties in the Middle East. As like all Canadians I look forward to an increasingly active role by the minister in that area of the world, and I hope the Conservatives will support him as will Canadians generally.
As one who called for the cancellation of the conference in Toronto this September I must say that I prefer the solution which the government has taken, a postponement until the UN atmosphere, in Canada's opinion, has improved. The government has not washed its hands of the UN or of the conference, in spite of the extent to which international politics and anti-Israel feeling have polluted it. Canada has drawn attention of the member states to a fact of which all Canadians are aware: to be effective, to be useful to its members, and to be worth preserving, the UN must return to its charter principles. These principles are respect for the integrity of member states, rejection of violence as a means of solving international differences, and universality of participation.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned in the House of Commons today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), the position of Canada obviously is in favour of the principle of universality, and it will resist very vigorously any effort to change the status of Israel at the General Assembly.
The Next General Assembly of the United Nations will provide an opportunity to affirm the principle of universality as a fulfillment of what ought to be a basic aim of the United Nations. More specifically, we will resist any attempt to exclude Israel, or any other country, from the proceedings of the General Assembly. Acceptance of this principle would guarantee the status of Israel within the

July 21, 1975
Adjournment Debate
community of nations and thus remove one cause of instability in the area.
Through new initiatives, both bilateral and multilateral, the government will try to improve the political situation in the Middle East and in the UN, notably through our participation in the next session of the General Assembly, which may be crucial for the future of the organization, given the fundamental character of the issues on which debates are expected to focus. Canada will consult with other interested countries on the ground rules governing technical discussions in UN arenas. Either independently or in co-operation with others, we will attempt to formulate and seek support for an effective resolution in the General Assembly on this question.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs also intends to accept during the autumn outstanding invitations to
visit a number of countries in the Middle East. These visits, which the government already considered most useful for strengthening our relations with this region of the world, have taken a new urgency following the difficulties we encountered in holding the United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention. The House can be assured that the minister will take this opportunity to solicit the views of his hosts on these difficulties and seek their support for the United Nations as a universal forum and an effective international instrument.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Tuesday, July 22, 1975