1975-07-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. May I say, before I put the motion, that there is agreement that if the House sees fit to give unanimous consent to the motion, there will be no debate.
In view of the fact that Canada will play host to the International Commission on the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries in September, when parliament will be in recess, and in view of the importance to Canada's east coast fishing industry of getting agreement from the ICNAF member states to a 40 per cent reduction in quotas, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House supports the government's initiative to obtain agreement from ICNAF for a 40 per cent reduction in quotas which is vital to the viability of Canada's east coast fishing industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required before this motion can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, finding unanimous consent, I shall put the motion. It is moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House supports the government's initiative to obtain agreement from ICNAF for a 40 per cent reduction in quotas which is vital to the viability of Canada's east coast fishing industry.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House. Whereas the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has deliberately and knowingly engaged in a conspiracy to cheat Canadian car owners by refusing to divulge information on, or otherwise notify individuals of the existence of hidden or secret extended warranties on certain automobiles, and whereas these secret warranties were extended because of known defects on certain automobile models, and whereas victims of auto breakdowns which have resulted from those known defects deserve to be reimbursed by the companies involved, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House calls on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to table forthwith all documents and correspondence pertaining to these secret warranties.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required before the motion can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent and important matter.
Since the national budget is increasingly extensive and that it becomes essential to control more thoroughly the expenditures of the various departments as well as those of the Crown corporations, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House suggest without debate that the staff at the Auditor General's office be increased to enable it to do a more thorough auditing which will enable hon. members to see more clearly how the estimates voted by the House are used.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion
29669-14y2

July 23, 1975
Agriculture
requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such a consent?
Some hon. Members; Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. A few weeks ago the Rockefeller commission studying the activities of the CIA reported that the Russian government, using highly sophisticated technology, was monitoring and recording thousands of private telephone conversations in the United States. The commission also found that telephone calls made by government officials, including those in Congress and the White House, were also being monitored and recorded, and it was concerned about the threat not only of the possible disclosure of information relating to national security but also about the possibility that such monitoring might allow Soviet officials to blackmail private citizens into working for them.
As Canadian Defence Department officials disclosed that the Russians are also monitoring long distance telephone calls placed in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That the possibility of foreign monitoring of long distance telephone calls placed in Canada be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for immediate study and report.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
At the beginning of the month the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced a 45-cent additional deduction on milk powder exports. Since that measure means that each producer will suffer an average annual loss of income of $2,500 and that such a decision puts producers in

an unacceptable situation contrary to the promises the minister had made last April, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That this House unanimously recommend to the responsible minister the immediate abolition of that deduction particularly unfair to industrial milk producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister relates to the CANDU sale to Argentina and the statement the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made in the House on July 14. He stated that a bilateral agreement regarding safeguards had not been completed and said, as reported on page 7520 of Hansard:
So, of course, the obligation under the financial agreement and the continuance of the project have been delayed while this is being negotiated.
In view of the minister's statement, what comment has the Prime Minister to make on the fact that, as reported in the press from Buenos Aires, the project is continuing, has been under way for one year, is under the supervision of AECL, and that a spokesman for AECL in Canada has stressed that if work was to have stopped at the site, it was up to the Canadian government, not AECL, to order it stopped? How does the Prime Minister reconcile the minister's statement with the facts?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, assuming the facts are as reported in this article, I will have to ask for explanations to see what the answer is. The House will understand that the situation developed because after having entered into those arrangements with Argentina under the international safeguards, we did bring in, in December, very substantially increased safeguards. I believe we had the support of the House, at least, in asking for greater safeguards on CANDU technology and Canadian material. But this meant our returning to our co-contractor and reopening the contract in order to get him to accept higher safeguards.
In the meantime, my understanding is, as is that of the minister, that we had suspended the continuation of the work. If it has not been suspended, I will have to find out
July 23, 1975

the reasons why and either the minister or I will report back to the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact we have gradually been finding our way through the policy with regard to this contract, and there seems to be a mixture of piety, humbug and evasion, with the minister claiming that the work was ordered to be stopped, will the Prime Minister ascertain the date on which AECL was ordered by the government to stop this work, and will the Prime Minister be prepared to table in this House the directives to AECL?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that I will certainly find out what the facts are, and find out particularly whether the facts reported in the press are exact. But I must, with respect, point out that there may be some piety in our attitude but there is no evasion and no humbug. I think it is quite clear that the international safeguards which we had followed and which we had enjoined other countries to follow were considered sufficient until the experience of the explosion of a nuclear device by India last year. As a result of that, Canada unilaterally upgraded its safeguards to prevent the recurrence of such an event. There were, of course, contracts which were in train at that point. It did mean, for us, returning to our co-contractor and unilaterally trying to reopen the contract. This is not evasion; this is clear. This is an indication that the government is as concerned as anyone in this country about ensuring that the use of our technology does not lead to any explosive device,


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary with regard to the humbug and the evasion. Will the Prime Minister try to find time to read the statement I made yesterday in the House on a point of order with regard to some of the history of this matter? When the Prime Minister reports back to the House with regard to any instructions given to AECL, will he also report the approximate amount of money that AECL has already committed, on behalf of Canada, to this project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION IN EVENT AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS NOT REACHED
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will direct my question to the government House leader. At page 7086 of Hansard I concluded some remarks on this deal by saying:
We now have contracts and an agreement. We are going to be in extreme difficulty if we try to back out of either the contracts or the agreement, and we will be in double jeopardy if we back out of both.
The government House leader immediately replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the negotiations for the completion of bilateral agreement which flows from the agreement mentioned by the hon. member are still under way.
In light of those assurances which we received in the House, will the minister explain this statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources outside the House yesterday, that if it is proved impossible to get new safeguards, the CANDU will not be shipped and in that
Oral Questions
case the project probably will be a white elephant and open to a law suit?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President o£ the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, Canada is prepared not only to apply improved safeguards on new projects but on projects that are under way. I hope the hon. member will recognize that this may be costly.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: In light of that assurance in the House, and in light of yesterday's statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that if we suspend the sale because of failure to agree on adequate safeguards the country could be open to a damage suit, will the minister explain why ministers have been telling this House day after day that the present negotiations were adequately provided for in the sales agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition and adequately replied to by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No.


Mitchell William Sharp: I suggest the Leader of the Opposition should read again what the minister said. I listened very closely to his comments and I hope he reads the minister's comments as carefully.


FISHERIES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fisheries) arising out of his announcement that Soviet fishing vessels have been banned from the east coast of Canada. Given the size of the Soviet fishing vessels, they have the capacity to remain at sea for a long time. Can the minister give the House any reason for believing that the decision to ban Soviet vessels from our ports on the east coast will have the effect of ensuring compliance, on the part of the Soviet Union, with the ICNAF fishing restrictions, given the size of the Soviet vessels and their capacity to remain at sea for long periods?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: rejoice that the New Democratic Party has discovered the situation in the fisheries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: I might also say I appreciate the support of the hon. member for the port closure decision. I think it is support; I do not know whether I understood him correctly. I would say to him that with 400 visits to our east coast ports last year, the Soviet fleet will find it is a very considerable inconvenience to them. However, I have not tried to mislead anyone by saying the Russian fleet cannot manage without the Canadian ports. They could do so, but I am sure they will

July 23, 1975
Oral Questions
find it very inconvenient, judging from the level of the purchases they made in Canada last year.


John Edward Broadbent: Is it the minister's understanding that the ban the government has imposed will not in itself be sufficient to deter the Russians from overfishing off the east coast beyond our existing territorial limits-that it will not in itself be sufficient to achieve the ends to which he is committed?


Roméo LeBlanc: It is difficult to determine what the reaction of the Soviet government will be, but I would say to the hon. member that the ICNAF meeting in September will bring the 17 nations to the table and on this table will be one factor, that one country felt strongly enough that it closed the ports to one nation and threatened to close them to two others.


John Edward Broadbent: With reference to that September meeting in Montreal, I should like to ask the minister whether, if the government fails to get acceptance of its stated objective at that meeting of a 40 per cent reduction of foreign fishing off our east coast, he would state today in the House that this would automatically entail a decision by the Government of Canada to assume jurisdictional authority up to 200 miles off our east coast?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to ask a question which starts with "if". Also, I hope he does not expect me to say exactly what we shall do before we even start negotiating, as we shall in September.


TRANSPORT
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
As the means of communication between lies aux Grues and the other islands located across from the town of Montmagny and suburban areas are not adequate to meet the needs of agriculture, tourism and industry, can the minister tell the House whether he has been in touch and discussed with the Quebec Minister of Transport the possibility of having communications that would correspond to the needs of that area while, at the same time, allowing the development of its tourist industry?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had meetings with the Quebec Minister of Transport for that purpose. I believe the problem falls within the province's jurisdiction, that is to say that communications within a province are a provincial matter; of course, we could perhaps be of assistance to the extent where the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would agree with the province of Quebec to develop modes of transport between lie aux Grues and Montmagny. But the Department of Transport, as such, can do nothing about it under the circumstances.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the very worthy reply the Minister of Transport has just made, may I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he has had discussions, or whether the province of Quebec has made representations, through its own transport minister, to seek financial assistance from the central government, namely the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to improve the communication facilities between lie aux Grues and the town of Montmagny, thereby contributing to the economic development of the area?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, we have a number of existing agreements with the province of Quebec with regard to highways and we are negotiating a number of others. If the hon. member will permit, I will take the question as notice and find out about the specific one he refers to and whether or not discussions are under way.



FISHERIES


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fisheries). Now that Canada has shown its willingness to flex its muscles in the announcement today by the minister closing east coast ports to the Soviet fishing fleet, may I ask the minister whether the announcement was preceded by negotiations with the government of France, and was an agreement obtained from that government that it would close the port at St. Pierre to these 400 ships? Otherwise, the minister's announcement would be tantamount to firing an empty shell across the bow of the Soviet fleet.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, remembering what the hon. member said some weeks ago when I talked of port closure, I rejoice that he has seen the light. I must say that this morning when I met with the minister of fisheries from Newfoundland, he supported me fully. I appreciate that. I also had the support of the minister of fisheries of Nova Scotia.
On the question of the St. Pierre and Miquelon utilization, I have said that we have been in contact with the government of France. They have already made a statement, reported in the press some weeks ago, to the effect that in no way could they increase their facilities to provide what is required from Canadian ports by foreign fleets.



CLOSING OF EAST COAST PORTS TO SOVIET FISHING FLEET-EFFECT ON ATLANTIC ECONOMY

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question may I say to the minister that the situation has become very serious and we have all had to revise our thinking because of the lack of action
July 23, 1975

taken by the government on behalf of the fishing industry. I should like to ask the minister whether the government intends to assess the economic impact that this closure will have on east coast ports, especially on the port of St. John's, and has any consideration been given to this bearing in mind that this area of Canada already has the highest rate of unemployment in the country? Let me tell the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


James Aloysius McGrath: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of vital concern to the Altantic provinces, especially to my province. I asked the minister a legitimate question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member put a question to the minister which the minister may wish to answer. I interrupted the hon. member because he appeared to be headed toward a representation. If the minister wishes to answer the question, he may.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we certainly did look at the economic impact that this would have. But we also felt it was time to do things about which we had been talking for weeks and months-


An hon. Member:: For years.


Roméo LeBlanc: -and for years. If the hon. member cannot accept the wisdom of this decision, then he must make up his own mind. I would say to him that I think he was asking the rest of the nation to support this area-


James Aloysius McGrath: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, the minister has no right to make insulting remarks like that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I am going to be strict with the hon. member posing the question, I ought to ask the minister to keep his answer to the same subject.


Roméo LeBlanc: I want to say, very quickly, that if I did not express myself properly perhaps I should speak in the other official language.

If the hon. member means to say that we have, in the rest of our country, a responsibility when we make national decisions of this type, I fully agree with him. And that is why I feel the whole nation must come to the assistance of fishermen in both these areas of our country, namely the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is not as if the minister had attempted to answer my question. He has imputed motives and misrepresented what I said. May I ask the minister whether the government is now prepared, preliminary to its meeting with ICNAF countries in September, to announce to
Oral Questions
the world that if we cannot obtain agreement bilaterally, in reference to what the Prime Minister said yesterday, from nations which have historic rights on the east coast, we are prepared to close our east coast ports to all foreign fishing fleets?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, there are many nations in ICNAF supporting the stand we are taking. They have supported us actively, and I believe it would be totally irresponsible to have this sort of threat hanging over their heads.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the Prime Minister's assurance that there is no humbug from that side of the House in relation to CANDU safeguards and the Argentinian deal. I ask whether he can clarify for me an apparent contradiction regarding the utilization of spent fuel rods, which I am sure is a matter important enough to be at least within his personal knowledge. On July 16, as recorded at page 7619 of Hansard, in answer to a question of mine, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources states the following with regard to spent fuel rods and the safeguards agreement with Argentina:
-that the spent fuel to be used in a Canadian reactor or a reactor not constructed in Canada but with Canadian technology at a later date or one using fuel supplied by Canada, may not subsequently be applied for any weapons making purpose. There is no gap in the coverage of safeguards.
I wonder, therefore, if the Prime Minister could explain the words of the same minister, standing in his place in the House yesterday, who clearly stated something entirely different, namely, that Canada is still attempting to negotiate an agreement with Argentina under which Canada would have control over spent fuel from a CANDU nuclear reactor?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Two statements on two different days, that is all!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the first answer quoted by the hon. member is absolutely correct. It is an expression of the safeguards that we announced in December, this new level of safeguards, to the effect that they would apply to the whole life cycle of fission material or of material which has been processed by Canadian technology. The first answer is perfectly correct. The second answer is also perfectly correct. It applies to the precise case of Argentina which, as I explained earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, had been settled by negotiations before the upgraded safeguards. Now that we have upgraded the safeguards, we are going back to them and applying this new rule to them and asking that it be applied by them. This is the state of negotiations now.

July 23, 1975
Oral Questions
I repeat, I think this should have the support of the House, since the opposition parties are telling the government that it should indeed have much higher safeguards than we have had in previous circumstances. Of course, having higher safeguards means that one has to go back to the people with whom negotiations have already begun and tell them that this is a new set of rules and we would like to negotiate them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on a supplementary.



SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-CONSULTATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENT AND AECL BEFORE COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT SIGNED

Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, if you are limiting me to one supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister to go back to those words of July 16 when the minister was speaking specifically about Argentina and specifically saying that the agreement was concluded in regard to the safeguards and the spent fuel.
My supplementary question, then, is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was the Department of External Affairs even consulted before AECL signed the commercial agreement with Argentina and actually commenced construction 1 Vi years ago and, if not, why not?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in the normal course there were exchanges between the two departments on this matter. But in order to confirm precisely the fact, I will have to have it checked.



COST OF KEEPING HOUSE IN SESSION

Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: In view of the fact that it costs $250,000 to $280,000 daily to keep this House in session, could the President of the Treasury Board say whether it is correct to estimate that the taxpayers of Canada have paid more than $1 million so far for the opposition parties to fight the Ontario election in this House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize a slight political overtone in that question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No, three o'clock.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That was a sweetheart question.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the chairman of the public accounts committee. Could he assure the House that the extensive, unusual and questionable expenditures of public funds by Richard Dicerni and Daniel Coates, just a fraction of which were revealed in the delayed answers to my starred questions Nos. 1,738 and 1,739, will be thoroughly investigated when the public accounts committee reconvenes, and a full report given to the House?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: That's a sweetheart question.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee takes its terms of reference from the House of Commons. Generally speaking, those terms of reference require the committee to deal with the Auditor General's report for the preceding year. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, let me say that if the item to which he refers is in the Auditor General's report for next year, as chairman of that committee I feel I can give him a reasonable assurance that this item will be investigated by the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dinsdale:: That is the way to answer questions.


John Napier Turner: I hope the Auditor General takes note of that question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question follows on the original question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I will address it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the government ever authorize AECL, a Canadian government agency, to undertake the task of supervising the building, up to the point of the foundations at least, of the nuclear reactor in Argentina? If it did not authorize this, when did the minister first become aware that AECL was in fact supervising this particular project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question, obviously, is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. AECL reports to that minister. I will attempt to get the informa-
July 23, 1975

tion and I will draw the attention of the minister to the question that has been asked.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that this information might be available to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and was not conveyed to him? I am asking when he, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, first knew that a Canadian government agency was contributing, by supervision, toward the building of an Argentine reactor which apparently had not been approved by his department.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the relevance of the question. What is important, so far as I am concerned, is the nature of the safeguards that are applied to all these Canadian, transferred nuclear facilities. That is the important concern from the policy point of view. If the hon. member wants me to answer questions on that subject, I will be glad to answer them.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is this. Is the minister saying that the building of the superstructure for the reactor is no business of the Government of Canada, when a Canadian agency owned by the Government of Canada in fact is doing much of the work? It must have made the plans for the reactor- available to the contractors.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Obviously it is of concern to the Government of Canada, but the operation, the whole transaction referred to is under the responsibility of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister of that department, when he is in the House, will answer these questions when asked.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It has to do with recent reports to the effect that more and more narcotics dealers in various parts of the world have launched a campaign against humanity as a whole. Is it not a fact that the RCMP officers protect Canadians in connection with narcotics and such offences, find themselves unable to do a full and complete job in connection with investigation of narcotics offences because of the fact that, no matter how much they may suspect that letters or other communications which pass through the mail carry within them narcotics, they are unable to make a search thereof?
Has the minister received complaints along this line? In view of the fact that narcotics destroy not only the bodies but the souls of individuals, if such is the case will the minister do something to bring in an amendment to the law, while protecting the privacy of the mail in general, to ensure that such potential interference with the adminis-
Oral Questions
tration of justice in respect of narcotics shall not be continued?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in recent years the RCMP has placed a very high priority on the fight against narcotics trafficking. For the past two years the RCMP has had agents in countries which are the principal sources of narcotics trafficking. With regard to mail, the right hon. member is correct in saying that first-class mail cannot be opened by the police during an investigation. When they suspect that narcotics are contained in first-class mail, they try to follow the mail to its destination and continue the investigation after the delivery of the mail. I cannot say that the RCMP have found this to be an insurmountable deterrent in dealing with this problem, but I will check with them to see if they have any further recommendation to make.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his explanation. I would remind him of the fact that within the last few days he is reported in the press as having made a statement to the effect that it is against the law of Canada for Canadian government agencies to open the mail. Then he said:
That has caused us-
I presume that is the RCMP.
-some problems sometimes because on occasion we have known that narcotics have been coming into the country in the post.
Does the minister not feel there should be an amendment to the effect that, while the privacy of the mail should be protected, this kind of traffic should not in any way be condoned by the failure of parliament to act?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is true that from time to time the RCMP have indicated a concern over this. Sometimes they have felt that narcotics were being brought into the country in the first-class mail and, as I say, in those cases they have dealt with the matter by following the mail to its source. But they have not made a big issue of it, and so far as I know they have not recommended that we change the first-class mail system. However, I will check with the force to find out what their exact recommendations are.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that in 1974 Canada experienced a net capital outflow, the first since these numbers were recorded, can the minister inform the House if this net capital outflow is continuing this year and is contributing to our balance of payments deficit?

July 23, 1975
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. At the moment, of course, the deteriorating current account deficit is due primarily to falling exports.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask for clarification of Canada's relationship with India, arising out of two important events, the detonation of a nuclear bomb by the use of Canadian technology, and the breakdown of parliamentary democracy in India. Has our aid program to India, with the exception of food, been suspended or cut back as an expression of Canadian concern and, if not, in what way has the Government of Canada communicated its concern about the escalation of danger brought about by the juxtaposition of nuclear technology and authoritarian rule?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the nuclear explosion, following the explosion our government suspended all its aid programs with India with the exception of food and agriculture. That situation continues at the present time. The nuclear co-operation has been suspended and aid, with the exception of food and agriculture, is also under suspension.



NUCLEAR BOMB TEST BY INDIA-PERIOD WHEN GOVERNMENT REASSESSED AID PROGRAM

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in light of his earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that Canada began to tighten its safeguards after the nuclear explosion in India in May of 1974, and began to reassess its nuclear contracts-I believe that is what he said-how he relates that statement to the fact that AECL's involvement in Argentina began in August, 1974, some three months after the Indian explosion? When did the government's reassessment begin; was it before, or after, August?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, immediately after the explosion our reassessment began. I personally raised the matter with the Indian authorities and we sent a special delegation to India to try to clarify the matter and reach a satisfactory agreement. It was discussed again by me with some of the Commonwealth leaders as late as last April at the Commonwealth meeting, and between those two dates I had spoken to the ambassador.
I repeat that some Canadian officials had gone to India for a period of several months when we were trying to get a better understanding with India. Parallel to this we were studying the desirability of having unilateral increased safeguards, assuming we could not obtain agreement with

India or with other countries in the IAEA. It was in December that things were brought to a head by this unilateral declaration. It does not mean that we are not continuing to receive multilateral acceptance of these higher safeguards-indeed, for obvious reasons this is very important-but in December we said that we had to act alone. It is a matter of conscience, and we will try to have our purchasers accept these higher safeguards.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Is this information as to the reassessment which was being undertaken by the government conveyed to AECL so that it did not go ahead with its work in Argentina in August of 1974?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In this regard I would also say that the AECL is not directly under my authority and I would have to obtain the precise answer to that from the minister. But I must point out to the hon. member that we were tied by a contract with Argentina under the previous arrangements, and it is quite possible that AECL had no legal basis under which it could unilaterally break that contract. It was not its job as an agency to do so. It was relying on the government to attempt to do so, and that is where the minister's explanation comes in about us trying to have improved safeguards.



TRANSPORT


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Due to what appears to be an increase in fatalities in traffic accidents caused when one or both vehicles involved burst into flames, would the minister have his department undertake an investigation as to the causes of this apparent increase in fires in cars following accidents, and take steps to increase the safety factor with regard to fires in automobiles?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have a motor vehicles branch. Its duty is to check the safety of cars and to see that all cars sold in Canada have all the known safety features. If they do not have those features, of course we ask the manufacturer to recall the cars. But we do not investigate ordinary accidents; this is under provincial jurisdiction.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the latest revelation that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, by April of 1975, was well aware of the existence of extended warranties on certain makes of automobiles and specific quality defects,
July 23, 1975

and in view of the refusal of the department to inform the public of the existence of such hidden warranties, can the minister inform the House why his department did not relay the information about these extended warranties to the public? Can he also tell us why Box 99 refused to inform consumers who specifically inquired about such warranties?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. member is totally mistaken in the statements he has just made. Indeed no letters were exchanged between my department and the car manufacturing companies on the subject. On the other hand, officials of my department are trying to obtain extremely important information in favour of the consumer. The moment we get that information, I shall be pleased to make it public.


John R. Rodriguez: I must inform the minister that I did not in any way suggest that he was informed by the automobile industry, but the Automobile Protection Association sent the minister's department information with respect to the extended warranties and therefore my supplementary question is this: Can the minister inform the House whether he intends to end the fine co-operation between his department and the automotive industry by publicizing all the information he presently has concerning the hidden warranties and by bringing in legislation which would make it mandatory for the industry to inform the consumer of extended warranties?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is based on false premises. That is why I gave a negative reply a while ago.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it follows a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Churchill, last week. The minister will remember that my colleague asked what caused the minister to take steps to close the northern airstrips of Manitoba to class 2 and class 3 carriers. In view of the fact that these airstrips have been used for the past four years, I know the minister has a contingency plan otherwise he would not have closed them.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I would like to know if the minister would indicate to the House what the contingency plans are to remove the crippling effect which is the result of his action in closing these northern airstrips.
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and make inquiries in this regard.



PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which he can answer very easily, and it will enable his blood pressure to return to normal. Is the Prime Minister planning in the next few months to take any more helicopter tours around Ontario? If he is, would he accept an offer made by the Conservative MLAs and the candidates to pay all the expenses of his tour, which would take them off the backs of the taxpayers? The candidates feel they would receive tremendous benefits from a tour in the next election, just as I did when the Prime Minister paid my riding a visit prior to the 1972 election. He visited the Picton fair and gave the country an excellent idea as to why they should vote Conservative.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit shocked at the offer of the hon. member, because when he says that the Conservative Party would pay for that, I know where they would obtain the funds.


An hon. Member:: Same place you would.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have here a letter addressed to the Ministry of Transport, in one language only, asking the Minister of Transport for funds for the Conservative Party, and I think this is very shameful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister received any representations from the Indian Brotherhood and Metis Association of the Northwest Territories regarding the establishment of the Dene nation? Second, has the government established a position in this regard as yet; and third, if so, what is the position?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, Mr. Speaker. Except in press reports I have not received any official comment on this. I am waiting for a copy of the resolutions. However, my initial reaction is that two nations in the Northwest Terri-

Oral Questions
tories is no more acceptable than two nations in any other part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since there may be a halt called to the Nelson River project in Manitoba unless, to use the minister's own words, additional information is supplied by the province of Manitoba, I would like to ask the minister what specific information he is asking for and what, in the minister's own words, have been the stumbling blocks which have led to the breakdown between the province of Manitoba and the federal government over this very important matter?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that the news reports seem to be emphasizing the negative rather than the positive. I had a good meeting yesterday with the Premier of Manitoba. We agreed that the two things which were essential were a clear definition of what the impact of this flooding would be on the reserves involved, and what compensation the province of Manitoba was prepared or would propose to give. The premier indicated that he felt he did reply to those requirements and outlined what I thought were some fairly positive ideas on how compensation should be handled. Basically, I am in the position of waiting for his reply.


Jack Burnett Murta: I should like to ask if the minister did make a veiled threat to the Premier of Manitoba that an injunction to stop work on the total project would be sought unless information was obtained by August 6.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I indicated during the press conference that after August 6 I would pursue with my colleague, the Attorney General, the matter of the action we should take. These are federal lands held in trust for Indian people, and they are under threat of being flooded. As trustee, I have a definite responsibility to the Indian people to make certain they are protected.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will realize that I am not a chronic complainer. For that reason I want to draw the attention of the Chair to what I believe are rulings that are treating some members, myself included, as less equal than others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Today, as has happened at least three times in the past three months, I have been denied permission by the Chair to ask a supplementary question without the Chair 6ven knowing what I intended to ask. Following the refusal of the Chair today to allow me to ask my supple-

mentary question concerning India and Canada's relationship with India-which I consider to be of extreme importance to this government and the whole country-hon. members representing Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and Lisgar (Mr. Murta) were permitted to ask supplementary questions without the Chair knowing what they wanted to ask either.
If Your Honour wants to uphold the practice of allowing as many members as possible to ask questions-given the exigencies of the clock-I find myself in complete support. Indeed, some of my colleagues in the fifth row were not recognized today and I would have gladly yielded on my supplementary question to one of them. Some of my colleagues who wanted to ask a first question were not able to do so.
My point is that the decisions of the Chair are unclear as to the criteria for permission to ask a supplementary question. In other words, how is the Chair coming to this decision? I feel that unless this situation is clarified we in the fourth and fifth rows, who have a difficult enough time in trying to be heard in this House, will have to keep protesting.
I believe the people of Edmonton-Strathcona sent me here to do a job, and Your Honour's rulings are as much a reflection upon them as upon me. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan):
That the problem of supplementary questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member realizes, of course, that he is not in a position to introduce a motion on the proceedings of the House. His point of order is one with which I sympathize, but I hope he will recognize that I have tried to keep very careful watch on members like himself who are consistently in the House and stand each day. The reason he was recognized today, with others on the back benches, in preference to some on the front benches and senior members is because they have been here for two or three days in succession trying to be recognized. The reason his supplementary was not granted was because of a simple choice I have to make every day which becomes no simpler with the passage of time.
Some questions have been explored by earlier questions, some have been covered in a general way, and others are new subjects. The hon. member mentioned by comparison the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who raised a brand new subject. It would seem to be most difficult to stop that without permitting a supplementary. In contrast, the hon. member raised a question about nuclear arms sales, and an explosion that has taken place in India, which have been the subject of questions not only by his leader today but also on earlier days. Therefore, if I have to select some questions on which I do not grant a supplementary, obviously it is on matters of a general nature which have been covered in other questions. If I select questions on which to grant supplemen-taries, it is on ones which are of a specific nature and which raise new subjects.
There is no guideline. It is not an easy matter. There are other hon. members who have a much more serious grievance. I rather suspect that the hon. member for Frontenac-
July 23, 1975

Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack), who seeks the floor on a point of order, is one of them; the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) is another who has not been able to be recognized; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) was recognized today after three or four days-much longer than the hon. member in trying to achieve the floor.
It simply is not possible to send every member home happy after the question period. The hon. member has to recognize that, and I think we have to accept collective responsibility for it rather than trying to place individual responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order also affects the privileges of all members of the House. It arises from derogatory remarks regarding the duties and standing of members of the House made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) who said that it costs over $200,000 per day to operate this House. The inference made by the hon. member is that the members of the official opposition, by being here in our places, are causing additional expense to the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Where is she?


An hon. Member:: She has gone home.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: My point of order-in her absence, although she was here a few minutes ago-is that since all members of this House and all employees are paid on an annual basis and all expenses and costs are fixed annually, her statements are without foundation and are misleading to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the very nature of my job I have to be neutral and, like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), I have been put under pressure to give money to the PC's who say to me, "We cannot do it alone, we need your help."



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-409, to amend the National Housing Act (proof of need).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the power to demand production of T-4 slips each year from
Authority to Travel
those receiving assistance with private mortgages, to ensure that the recipients of such help continue to need the subsidy first allocated to them.


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

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-410, respecting the use of safety belts in motor vehicles under federal jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this bill will require the wearing of safety belts in all federal highway vehicles, and require that seats for school buses imported into Canada are equipped with approved restraining devices.
A number of countries have already discovered that safety belt usage has increased from about 12 per cent to over 75 per cent with the adoption of a legal requirement. The 1974 federal provincial conference of health ministers approved such legislation in principle. Evidence is overwhelming that safety belts save lives.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the House approved a study by the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works of oil and gas policies and some other subjects, and gave the committee authority to adjourn from place to place in Canada and in Alaska for a period of not more than 20 days in September, 1975.
I have been asked by members of the committee to move a motion, for which I believe I have the unanimous agreement of the House leaders, which will amend that authority and that instruction by changing the period during which the travel may take place from September, to the period September 1, 1975, to October 13, 1975. Therefore, with the consent of the House, I move:
That, during the study by the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works of the questions of oil and gas pipelines and the supply of oil and natural gas from frontier areas, the members of the said committee and the necessary support staff be authorized to adjourn from place to place in Canada and in Alaska, U.S.A., for a period of not more than twenty days between September 1, 1975 and October 13, 1975.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
July 23, 1975
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,320, 2,467, 2,487, 2,492, 2,585, 2,616, 2,674, 2,740, 2,825, 2,841, 2,842, 2,884 and 2,895.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 2,230 and 2,411 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that questions Nos. 1,453, 1,577, 1,752, 2,082, 2,373 and 2,374 be made orders for return and also ask the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Patterson: 1.	Has Statistics Canada hired the public relations firm Heal, Shaw and Walden, Toronto, on a six month contract and, if so (a) what is the dollar value of such contract (b) what is the termination date of such contract?
2.	(a) What work is the firm expected to perform (b) will it perform work that cannot be done by regular employees of Statistics Canada Information Service?
3.	Was the firm hired with the permission and knowledge of the Minister or was it hired by Mr. David Worton on his own initiative?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. Yes. (a) The contract is for a maximum of $50,000. (b) It terminates on June 30, 1975.
2.	(a) The firm is assisting Statistics Canada in an evaluation of its procedures for conducting household surveys, including the means by which respondents' understanding of the purposes of such surveys, and their cooperation in supplying information, can be enhanced, (b) The work in question requires not only informational skills, but also those of subject-matter and field collection specialists. The Information Division of Statistics Canada is actively participating in the work, but it was decided to augment their resources by the use of an outside firm because of temporary staff shortages at the senior level.
3.	The decision to seek outside assistance was made according to standard government practice with submission to and approval by Treasury Board.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Are there any plans (a) for the extension of the federal building (b) to build or acquire by lease or otherwise additional space in Newcastle, New Brunswick and, if so, what are such plans?
2.	What is the total cost of the space required?

3.	What is the breakdown of the space required by purpose and department and, in each case, what is the cost?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a)
Yes. The Department of Public Works called public tenders on July 2, 1975 for a one-storey addition as well as renovations to the existing ground and second floors of the Government of Canada Building in Newcastle, N.B. (b) The Department of Public Works has leased 4,702 rentable square feet of office space for the Department of Manpower and Immigration for a five-year term effective June 1, 1975. The space is located on Pleasant Street and is being leased from Commercial Real Estates Limited, P.O. Box 100, Newcastle, New Brunswick.
2.	With respect to 1 (a), it is not customary to announce estimated costs before a contract has been awarded. The total cost of the leased space referred to in 1 (b) is $35,265 per annum.
3.	The additional space in 1 (a) above is required by Canada Post Office. The balance of the ground floor and the second floor of the Newcastle Government of Canada Building will continue to house National Revenue (Customs and Excise), Environment Canada (Fisheries), Ministry of Transport (Marine Service) and Canadian National Telecommunications. The leased space as in 1 (b) above will accommodate the Department of Manpower and Immigration (Canada Manpower Centre and Job Information Centre).


Mr. MacKay: 1.	How many different management consultant and/or personnel placement companies has Air Canada dealt with in the past four years?
2.	How many executives have been placed with Air Canada by management consultant and/or personnel placement companies?
3.	What commission was paid, in each case, by Air Canada to the personnel placement and/or management consultant companies?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. For recruitment purposes only, a total of four management consultants and/or personnel placement agencies.
2.	A total of four executives.
3.	Fees paid ranged from a minimum of $2,650 to a maximum of $12,000. Because these fees are directly related to the salaries of the individuals involved and because individual executive salaries are considered to be proprietary information, the actual amount in each case is not publicly available.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,523, for what reason does Air Canada offer free passes to Post Office officials?
2.	Are persons who currently have Air Canada passes able to use their pass after they retire or leave public service?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The development of the movement of mail by air has been a joint venture of the Post Office and the airlines. This joint venture has benefits for both parties and it has become a
July 23, 1975

Order Paper Questions
practice followed by airlines in Canada and other countries to provide a certain amount of transportation for Post Office officials to attend meetings of the two groups, sometimes at distant locations.
2. Only Air Canada employees, retain certain passes after retirement. Non-company personnel do not.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	For each of the past ten years, by province, how many train derailments were there on track operated by (a) CN (b) CP?
2.	For the years 1965 to 1974 inclusive, what was the increase in (a) passenger-car miles (b) freight-car miles for (i) CN (ii) CP?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. See table at end of answer.
2. (a) The increase in passenger-car miles for the years 1965 to 1974 inclusive were as follows: (i) Canadian National Railways, 1965, 18,617,914; 1966, 2,701,523; 1967, 16,429,982; 1968, No increase, (Decreased 36,964,499); 1969, No increase, (Decreased 25,285,044); 1970, No increase,
(Decreased 22,664,465); 1971, No increase, (Decreased 14,984,601); 1972,No increase, (Decreased 10,575,221); 1973, No increase, (Decreased 17,625,787); 1974, 13,305,329; (ii) Canadian Pacific Limited, 1965, 19,282,224; 1966, 31,565,734; 1967, 10,152,881; 1968, No increase, (Decreased 18,338,754); 1969, No increase, (Decreased 1,288,152); 1970, No increase, (Decreased 2,300,748); 1971, No increase, (Decreased 8,079,586); 1972, No increase, (Decreased 491,605); 1973, No increase, (Decreased 5,354,122); 1974,4,193,896.
2. (b) The increase in freight-car miles for the years 1965 to 1974 were as follows: (i) Canadian National Railways*, 1965, 29,076,344; 1966, 67,980,743; 1967, No increase, (decreased 53,784,375); 1968, No increase, (decreased 13,350,706); 1969, 80,979,871; 1970, 120,877,731; 1971, 128,971,874; 1972, 146,230,671; 1973, No increase, (decreased 79,700,644); 1974, 173,357,014; (ii) Canadian Pacific Limited*, 1965, 5,332,429; 1966, 122,221,441; 1967, No increase, (decreased 112,490,356); 1968, No increase, (decreased 51,976,421); 1969, 29,276,919; 1970, 142,896,963; 1971, 60,666,447; 1972, 103,828,610; 1973, 14,078,239; 1974, 65,481,920.
* These figures do not include Caboose Miles.
Derailments CN and CP 1965-1975*
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975*CN	CP	CN	CP	CN	CP	CN	CP	CN	CP	CN	CP	CN	CP	CN	CP	CN	CP	CN	CP	CN	ClNewfoundland	1	3	_	3	-	6	7	8	8	10	-	16	19	-	1	-Nova Scotia	8	-	3	-	8	-	11	-	6	-	3	-	8	-	13	-	10	-	11	-	3	-New Brunswick	13	-	8	-	9	1	21	2	14	2	28	-	18	-	15	-	10	3	13	2	3	2Prince Edward Island	1	-	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	2	-	1	-	2	-	1	-	1	-	1	-Quebec	28	5	37	3	33	2	26	3	29	5	25	3	29	5	41	8	35	4	41	7	6	1Ontario	49	17	53	22	36	12	40	27	47	17	58	24	52	19	40	17	46	22	59	37	12	4Manitoba	12	1	19	7	13	2	11	3	19	8	22	12	27	4	34	6	23	3	28	5	4	-Saskatchewan	16	6	17	9	11	9	7	5	13	8	12	12	10	5	16	11	14	14	14	18	2	4Alberta	22	8	11	5	16	6	8	7	10	7	12	4	9	5	24	9	23	10	49	14	6	4British Columbia	18	12	15	19	27	16	16	25	18	20	20	14	26	13	41	30	23	23	38	38	8	10
*January and February, 1975


Mr. Forrestall: Has the situation of January 17, 1975, described by the Minister of National Defence as "at present the sailor is able to identify with Maritime Command, and the soldier is able to identify with Mobile Command" changed by the decision to refuse to allow servicemen the right, acknowledged until recently, to wear the badges of their former pre-unification element/service and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No. As stated in response to Question 2403* (Hansard 134, page 5,877 dated 16 May, 1975) dress instructions issued on 3 April, 1970 stated that the cap badges associated with the class of service to which officers and men are assigned, were to be worn when the badge became available. Under the dress instructions issued on April 3, 1970 identification with a command is achieved by a badge worn on the right breast pocket by all members of the command. Also under these regulations identification with the classification or trade to which officers and men are assigned is achieved by a cap badge. It is for this reason that cap badges are not related to commands.


Mr. Cossitt: Was a document dated March 18, 1975 headed "Open Invitation to D.S.S. Bilingual Anglophones" and "Invitation aux francophones bilingues du MAS" circulated to employees in the Services and Receiver General of Canada Branch of the Department of Supply and Services and, if so (a) was it marked "Personal and Confidential" and for what reason (b) what was the exact purpose of the document (c) did all employees receive a copy and, if not, for what reason (d) was the document mailed or distributed to all employees with (i) English surnames (ii) French surnames?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: A memorandum dated March 18, 1975, headed "Open Invitation to DSS Bilingual Anglophones" and "Invitation aux francophones bilingues du MAS" was circulated to certain employees of the Department of Supply and Services, (a) The memorandum was not marked Personal and Confidential because the content did not warrant this classification, (b) The purpose of the document was to encourage anglophone graduates of French language courses to use their recently acquired knowledge

July 23, 1975
Order Paper Questions
and thereby maintain or improve their communication with others in their second official language, and to encourage their colleagues who are already bilingual including those who have French as their Mother tongue to assist them by using the French language whenever possible and appropriate, (c) All employees did not receive a copy since it is addressed to bilingual Anglophone and Francophone employees only. The invitation was not applicable to unilingual employees by its very nature, (d) The document was mailed to employees whose departmental records indicated that they enjoyed bilingual status, regardless of surname.


Mr. Francis: To the knowledge of the government, did Dr. Fred Ikle, director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and others, estimate that within 20 years the fissionable material in foreign transit at any given time will be enough to make 20,000 nuclear bombs and, if so, is the government prepared to make representations to the United Nations and other world councils regarding the necessity of new international institutions to supervise the flow of nuclear materials and prevent the theft of such materials?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Estimates on the amount of fissionable material that will be in transit at any given time 20 years from now are of course entirely speculatve in nature. It is reasonable to assume that certain quantities of fissionable materials will be in transit, and that should such material be stolen it is conceivable that an explosive device could be developed. There are strict regulations set up by the IAEA on the safe transport of radioactive material and extensive recommendations on the physical protection of such material in transit designed to prevent theft. Traditionally, the matter of physical protection has bee^viewed as the domestic responsibility of the states involved. At the recent NPT Review Conference it was agreed that the establishment of a convention to secure internationally applied physical protection standards was a matter that should receive further study. Through our participation in the IAEA Canada has always made clear its concern for stringent supervision of radioactive materials in transit, and we will continue to press for tighter regulations in this matter.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of May 15, 1975, how many persons have been hired (a) by the Public Service Commission (b) under contract by the Department of Agriculture for duties relating primarily to the implementation and administration of (i) Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act (ii) Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act (iii) Bill C-30, An Act to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act (iv) Bill C-50, Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the original employment or commencement of contract?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a) (i)
nil, (ii) 27, (iii) nil, (iv) nil; (b) (i) nil, (ii) one, (iii) nil, (iv) nil.

2. Hired by the Public Service Commission with duties related to Bill C-28. 1, August 2, 1973; 2, September 24, 1973; 2, October 1, 1973; 1, October 15, 1973; 2, November 26, 1973; 1, January 1, 1974; 4, March 5, 1974; 1, February 4, 1974; 1, March 25, 1974; 1, April 29, 1974; 1, May 1, 1974; 1, May 6, 1974; 1, May 15, 1974; 1, June 25, 1974; 1, July 8, 1974; 1, July 15, 1974; 1, July 28, 1974; 1, October 1, 1974; 2, November 1, 1974; 1, December 1, 1974; total 27. Hired under contract with duties related to Bill C-28, 1, July 15, 1974.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	Was or is Jean C. Paradis an officer, director or in any way connected in an advisory capacity with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	On what date did he attain this position?
3.	Did he attain this position by appointment or election?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Jean C. Paradis was appointed Regional Supervisor, Quebec Region, on January 1, 1954. He resigned on June 11, 1954, to accept employment with Campeau Corporation.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	By what process did the government choose Federal Commerce and Navigation Company Ltd., as its partner in the 35 million dollar bulk carrier icebreaker, announced June 16, 1975?
2.	Were other companies given the opportunity to submit tenders for the contract and, if so, who were they?
3.	Which Eastern Arctic mines including the destinations to which the ores are to be shipped will be served by this vessel?


Jean Marchand: 1.
Approximately three years ago the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Ministry of Transport engaged in discussions with a number of Canadian shipping companies concerning the design, construction and operation of Arctic Class vessels. The purpose of these discussions was to encourage companies to take the initiative in this new area of shipping technology and operation, and submit ideas and proposals for consideration to Industry, Trade and Commerce and MOT.
2.	The companies involved included Federal Commerce and Navigation, Canadian Steamship Lines, Upper Lakes Shipping, Canadian Arctic Consortium, Agence Maritime, Cogemar, Bomar Navigation. Only Federal Commerce continued to show interest, and proceeded at their own expense to design an Arctic vessel and subsequently received from Industry, Trade and Commerce a PAIT grant (Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology). On the basis of Federal Commerce initiative and the PAIT grant, a proposal of joint risk sharing between Government and Industry to construct and operate such a vessel was developed.
3.	The Navisivik Mine at Strathcona Sound and the proposed Arvik mine at Little Cornwallis are presently the most likely sources of cargo for the proposed icebreak-
July 23, 1975

mg cargo vessel. Both mine outputs have Europe as their final market destination.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	In regard to the tree nursery at Indian Head, Saskatchewan, what was the cost of this operation for the years (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) first six months of 1975?
2.	What was the income of this operation for the same years?
3.	What was the source of such income?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: This venture is owned and operated by the Province of Saskatchewan and accordingly the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development submits a nil reply.


Mr. Herbert: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,286, for what reason were no consumer help offices located in the Province of Quebec?


André Ouellet: In the answer to Question 2,286, part 2, it was indicated that there were seven Consumer Help Offices at varying stages of development. Two of these are in the Province of Quebec. Arrangements have since been concluded with Le Centre Communautaire et Depannage and with Le Centre Communautaire St. Urbain Community Centre (University Settlement of Montreal) for the operation of Consumer Help Offices in Montreal.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Huntington: 1.	How many public servants were employed in (a) 1968 (b) 1970 (c) 1972 (d) 1974 as (i) full-time employees (ii) part-time employees (iii) consultants?
2.	What were the maximum, minimum and average pay levels in each such year for (a) full-time employees (b) part-time employees (c) consultants?
3.	By department, how many public servants were employed in each such year as (a) full-time employees (b) part-time employees (c) consultants?
4.	By department, what were the maximum, minimum and average pay levels in each such year for (a) full-time employees (b) part-time employees (c) consultants?
5.	What was the total amount paid by the government for consultants in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974?
Return tabled.



SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS DEALING WITH DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What departments publish special publications dealing with departmental activities?
2.	For each publication, what is the (a) name (b) cost (c) circulation?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Which of these publications are prepared (a) by departmental employees (b) under contract and, in each case, who has the contract and at what cost?
4.	What publications are printed by (a) Queen's Printer (b) private printers and, in each case, who is the private printer and what is the cost for each edition?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-EMPLOYMENT OF INFORMATION OFFICERS

Mr. Roche: 1.	(a) How many information officers are employed by government departments (b) what are their (i) names (ii) titles (iii) salaries?
2.	(a) How many assistant information officers are employed by government departments (b) what are their (i) names (ii) titles (iii) salaries?
3.	(a) How many information officers are employed by Crown corporations (b) what are their (i) names (ii) titles (iii) salaries?
4.	What is the total amount of money paid all advertising agencies, public relations firms and freelance speechwriters in the last fiscal year for which such figures are available?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-DUTIES OF INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Marshall: 

ANNUAL REPORTS FOR CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Herbert: 1.	On what date was the latest annual report for each Crown corporation made available to the public?
2.	In each case, what was the fiscal year end if other than December 31?
Return tabled.

Order Paper Questions PUBLIC SERVICE-LANGUAGE TRAINING 
Question No. 2,373-Mr. Cossitt:
With reference to the answer to Question No. 456 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament which stated in part that 526 Public Service employees had taken French lessons and 21 had taken English lessons at a cost of $793,994 at the Berlitz School of Languages in Ottawa during the past three years, what are the names, job designations and government departments of all such persons?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-LANGUAGE TRAINING

Mr. Cossitt: Since the answer was prepared to Question No. 456 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament (a) how many additional public servants have taken or are taking at public expense (i) French-language courses (ii) English-language courses at the Berlitz School of Languages in Ottawa (b) what is the total expenditure in this regard from public funds (c) what are the names, job designations and government departments involved?
Return tabled.



POST OFFICE-BATTERTON MAIL SERVICES LTD.

Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Is government mail being delivered and/or picked up daily by trucks of Batterton Mail Services Ltd. in the Ottawa area and, if so (a) at what points (b) what type of mail is handled (c) under what contracts?
2.	Is the material of any department or agency being distributed by this company and, if so, what is the annual cost to each department or agency?
Return tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, for the second time I must raise this matter. I dislike doing this, but when the government fully intends to refrain from giving information which must be available to it, one can only conclude that it is contempt of the House. On May 23 I placed on the order paper question No. 2,542, a simple question which reads:
Are Canadians employed by the United Nations or any of its agencies or any organizations under its aegis subject to income tax on their earnings?
That question remains unanswered two months later. Why? Is the reason this, that it would be embarrassing if it were ascertained that some of those employed by the United Nations pay income tax, but others do not?


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order with regard to an unanswered question on the order paper. I put starred question 2,527 on the order paper on May 20. It remains unanswered. I fail to see why it should not have been answered immediately. To be fair, I did receive today an answer to one question standing in my name. I should like to be assured that the question will be answered in due course, no matter whether the principal secretary of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) remains in his present position.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with the matter raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I presume the question placed on the order paper has been referred to my department and, although it

has not come to my personal attention, I will examine the matter immediately.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 40?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE BOARD MINUTES OF THE NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD PASSED JANUARY 30, 1975

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Forrestall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the extract from the Board Minutes of the National Harbours Board, passed January 30, 1975, described in the answer to Question No. 1,899 relating to the delegation by the Board of some authority at the Port of Montreal to an Executive Committee with respect to day-to-day operations of the Port.
['The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raises a valid point of order. Hon. members will understand from the previous treatment of motions concerning labour unrest throughout Canada that there have been situations in which the Chair has simply\nExcise Tax Act\nsaid "At the moment the matter is one of continuing concern." However, that does not in any way preclude developments that may take place in the next few days which will aggravate the situation to the point persuading the Chair on another day as, for example, the instance put forward today. Rather than being part of a general policy, it concerned a particular sale. Events might transpire over a matter of hours or days that would bring it to a crisis or critical situation. While the Chair is of the opinion that at the moment the circumstances do not warrant setting aside special hours for an emergency debate in this House, it is a situation that can change on a daily basis.']
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, may I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the National Harbours Board does not make public extracts of board minutes. However, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) has the discretion to make public board policy matters regarding the delegation of authority to port authorities, executive committees, and port managers for the ports of Montreal and Vancouver, I wish to table in both official languages the policy adopted by the board on January 29, 1975. I therefore ask that this motion be withdrawn.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary indicated his intention to make this request. In the absence of the hon. member, and considering how unusual it is to see the government provide information of any kind, may I, on the hon. member's behalf, accept the parliamentary secretary's suggestion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion for the adjourn-
July 23, 1975

ment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, Canadian involvement in the construction of the nuclear reactor near Cordoba, Argentina, an involvement which has been in progress despite an absence of adequate safeguards.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was good enough to give the Chair notice of his intention to request an emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 26. The Chair does not intend to deal at length with the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. The motion, of course, concerns a matter of great importance, as is made clear by the frequency with which the House's attention is directed to that subject during the question period and through the use of motions proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43.
The Chair must repeat the same basic reasons that it gave a week ago to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) when the general subject of nuclear arms sales and safeguards policies was raised in the same way by that hon. member. Whether it was exactly a week ago is not material. It was actually nine days ago.
It was then the position of the Chair, as reported at page 7531 of the Hansard of the current session, was outlined showing that the subject had been a matter of continuing concern. That was also evident in today's question period, as perhaps half the question period was taken up by hon. members asking the questions about safeguards and about the general arms policy.
This shows two things. First, it is an extremely important subject, of great concern to Canadians, and therefore it is understandable why both hon. members sought the intervention of the Chair in setting aside time for an emergency debate. On the other hand, it has been a subject of concern for some time and, undoubtedly, whether there is a debate this evening or any other evening in the near future, it will continue to be a subject of concern, and hon. members will continue to direct questions to the government on its policies. Therefore, it seems to me as not being directly suitable for the treatment that is envisaged by Standing Order 26.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, will you forgive me if I raise a point of order? In doing so, I do not argue with your decision. I wonder, if there are future efforts to move motions under Standing Order 26 with respect to this matter, whether Your Honour will take into consideration the fact that the repeated raising of this question in this House means that it is a serious one. Will Your Honour also take into consideration that new developments can take place that make it more serious than it was earlier? As I say, Your Honour has made your ruling for today. I hope that any further attempts to move this motion will receive the kind of consideration I have now suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raises a valid point of order. Hon. members will understand from the previous treatment of motions concerning labour unrest throughout Canada that there have been situations in which the Chair has simply
Excise Tax Act
said "At the moment the matter is one of continuing concern." However, that does not in any way preclude developments that may take place in the next few days which will aggravate the situation to the point persuading the Chair on another day as, for example, the instance put forward today. Rather than being part of a general policy, it concerned a particular sale. Events might transpire over a matter of hours or days that would bring it to a crisis or critical situation. While the Chair is of the opinion that at the moment the circumstances do not warrant setting aside special hours for an emergency debate in this House, it is a situation that can change on a daily basis.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 22, 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. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks that I started last evening there are several important points to add to what I said during the first two minutes of my speech. I spoke of people who had to travel 500 to 700 miles to reach the main arteries of Manitoba in order to take part in recreation and so on. I failed to mention that there are others besides miners who have to do this. Although the mining industry is certainly the most important group that is hit, there are many forest workers, and workers in several other industries. These are the steelworkers from many of the northern communities in Manitoba who, as I said last night, are the backbone of this country. They are the ones who keep northern Manitoba going.
With regard to the ten cents a gallon excise tax, there are some in this House, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who fail to realize what a gallon of gas costs in some parts of northern Canada. I stated at one time that in many northern communities a gallon of gas costs in excess of $2 a gallon. I now have the proof. In Shamattawa at the present time the price of gas is $2.25 a gallon. This community is made up mostly of trappers, fishermen, and hunters who harvest the resources for their livelihood. It is little comfort for me to know that the ten cents a gallon increase is going to affect people such as this. But as we read further into the bill, we see that they will be exempt. These people will be able to apply for a refund on the very, very simple form the government will issue. If it is a simple form, it will certainly meet their character.
Many isolated northern communities do not have a regular mail service, television or telephones. They do not receive newspapers on a regular basis. They must depend on Information Canada. That is like trying to depend on the weather because Information Canada certainly does not cover all parts of Canada. It may be unpopular in this area, but it certainly is not in the isolated parts of Canada.

July 23, 1975
Excise Tax Act
I can see the trappers, fishermen and hunters in these isolated communities not making an application because they will not understand the form. I understand that it will be printed in French and English. Most of those who live in these remote communities speak, write, and understand Cree. I am sure they do not understand French. Presumably they will be able to find someone who will read the English portion to them.
Certain communities should be exempt from this ten cents a gallon excise tax for the simple reason they will receive a refund of every cent they spend on gasoline.
The refund will become part of the taxable income. The same problem was encountered with family allowances. The people in these remote communities had no knowledge of the fact that family allowances were to be a part of their income. The refunds of this gas tax will also form a part of their income. These people just cannot believe what has happened. They ask why the government gives them something, does not tell them about it, and then at the end of the year asks for some of the money back. Many of those who live in these isolated communities live almost below the poverty line. They do not have the money to make the payments back to the taxation department.
I question whether the government has the authority to collect this excise tax on Indian reserves. At the present time treaty Indians working on reserves do not pay income tax. Does the Excise Tax Act supersede the Income Tax Act? I tried to get this point clarified through the department in the last couple of days, but I was not successful. No one could tell me whether these people would have to pay or be exempt from this ridiculous gasoline tax.
This figure of $2.25 a gallon is the price for gas that was received last winter delivered over winter roads. When the new supplies of gas are received, the price will be $2.35 or $2.40 a gallon. I suppose once you start paying over $2 a gallon for gas it really does not matter if you add a nickel here or there. The people who are going to suffer are the consumers in northern Canada.
I now wish to deal with the additional tax that has been imposed on air travel. There are at least 25 communities in the Churchill constituency which have no other means of communication or transportation than by air. There are no roads or railways. Here again an additional tax is being imposed on these people even though they have no alternative but to travel by aircraft.
In addition, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) saw fit to close many northern airstrips. This has also imposed an additional burden on these people. The province of Manitoba agreed to cost share on a 50/50 basis an arrangement with the federal government in order to bring airstrips in northern Manitoba up to the national standard. I have asked the minister when action will be taken, or if in fact he will meet this cost sharing arrangement with the provinces. I have asked him to show some leadership by bringing remote airstrips back into operation so these people can use a facility that is there.
I hope the money that is being collected through this additional air transportation tax will be used as the federal government's share to bring the airstrips up to the standard that is required by the Department of Transport.

This government is not considering the people of this country. In our part of the country the burden the minister has placed on the public shows he does not believe that people come first. I know this is an old line which the NDP coined during the election campaign when they said people came first. In the Conservative Party we had no need to publicize that belief because the people always come first with the Conservative Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Cecil Morris Smith: On July 18 there was a press release from the Prime Minister's office to the effect that Canada and Manitoba were joining hands in an agreement to co-operate closely in informing citizens about programs which involve both levels of government. That was tremendous. That was really a step forward. However, on July 23 we read in the Globe and Mail that as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was standing talking to the premier face to face, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) was standing at his back with a knife saying, "Now that you have not supplied us with the information we are practically going to take action to put you in jail, or serve an injunction against the provincial government".
I was glad to see the Minister of Indian Affairs take this action. It is about time he stood up on behalf of the people he represents because I do not think he has represented the people who will be affected by the diversion of the Churchill River and by other hydro schemes in Manitoba.
As I look through Bill C-66 I am dismayed at its total irrelevancy to anything in northern Manitoba. All the bill does is impose a further burden on the people of the north. They cannot even travel by aircraft now because of the additional cost. They cannot afford to go on holiday.
We try to encourage people to come to the north to work in our mines and foster development, but as things are now we cannot even encourage them to come up there because the cost of living is becoming prohibitive. Yet if it were not for the northern part of Canada the rest of the country would be starving right now because 70 per cent of our product goes to the eastern part of the country so it can survive. For these reasons I think many of the clauses we are considering, especially the ten cents a gallon tax, should be struck from the bill. I certainly support the amendment moved by my leader to hoist the measure for six months. In fact, I should like to see it hoisted for ever.
I would mention one other thing. When it comes to the cost of heating homes may I say that we are heating them for nine or ten months of the year. When the effect of the increase in the price of heating fuel is felt people will be leaving the north in hordes. If members think the rate of unemployment is high now, wait until this bill becomes a reality, and people are not receiving their rebates. The unemployment rate in Manitoba will be a lot higher than it is at the present time, I can tell you.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed very closely and with great interest the current debate on Bill C-66 whose main purpose is to raise the excise tax on gasoline by ten cents. However, Mr. Speaker, you can rest assured that the House is not the only one to
July 23, 1975

witness the sometimes heated discussions on the subject, because the criticisms of the people are really harsh and comments are getting violent.
It can be said that because of the bill the Liberals' star is setting fast. As a matter of fact, I had warned the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when he presented his last budget that the gas price increase would be a bad measure in every respect. It is the most negative measure in his budget and it leads one to conclude, and everyone is saying so, that there will be no election this year. Anyone who cares to examine the bill and the consequences its implementation will have must really look hard to find out who might benefit from it.
No one, or almost no one, will benefit from the positive windfalls resulting from this bill, while on the other hand the most favoured will be inflation which will continue to increase. In my remarks on the budget speech I deplored and I still deplore today the fact that those who are hardest hit by this impossible legislation are once more the workers, the labourers and the farmers. Besides, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has also expressed the opinion that the great loser in this matter will be the average citizen who has very little means to try to reconquer his self-sufficiency. This means that is purchasing power is directly affected once more, without his being able to salvage anything from this important financial loss that he cannot avoid.
But an inevitable fact will happen if the government so continues to strangle the Canadian workers who are the basis of the economic pyramid of our present financial system. Indeed, if they are not allowed to adjust themselves and face the difficulties we encounter, the situation could crack on all sides and further worsen the economic problems Canada is now faced with.
Last week, here in Ottawa, the Food Prices Review Board published the report of a study made from January 1973 to April 1975, and the results make us think a lot since they directly affect the average citizen, and especially low income families. For that period, the price of bread increased by 51 per cent and the price of fresh milk by 54 per cent, while the consumer's price index for general food consumed at home went up by 35 per cent.
These facts are really meaningful, and if the 10 cents increase on gasoline is added, it becomes in every aspects a practical nonsense.
Last Wednesday, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) gave us a very good account of the painful situation of workers in his area who must drive several miles every day to go to work. Here is what he said:
The minister now comes along and slaps these people down with this ten cent per gallon tax. Even if they form pools, and they do, they cannot claim the fuel expense including this excise tax. They must use their cars or vehicles to get to and from their work, in much the same way as a doctor uses his car in the pursuit of his profession. There is no difference in the use of the vehicle, but the doctor is able to write off this tax.
He can have a rebate for this tax, whereas the worker cannot.
I want indeed to point out that this situation where workers absolutely have to drive to work is the same
Excise Tax Act
almost everywhere in Canada. In reality, only the cities of some importance can provide a choice in means of transportation to go to work. In my area, in the constituency of Richmond, we have the same situation. Many workers have to drive to work in the plants of Richmond, Windsor, Brampton, Sherbrooke, Valcourt, Disraeli, Weedon and other places. There as elsewhere our workers are affected by this tax.
There is also another class of loosers, and these are the farmers. Indeed, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture strongly criticized the last federal budget and pointed out the adverse effects of the increase in the price of gas. He clearly indicated that, on the one hand, although the budget provides an exemption for farmers, they will feel the increase in prices this coming August and, on the other hand, the prices of many oil by-products necessary in agriculture will automatically jump once again. This means that they too will feel the pinch of that increase and that will inevitably lead to a rise in the costs of food products. It is a vicious circle, and the government is currently maintaining the inflationary thrust by measures as irrational and detrimental as those contained in Bill C-66.
However, the government would like very much to let someone else carry the odiousness of such an unpopular measure but it might be a lot more difficult to do this time. Indeed, oil companies also reacted. Everybody is stepping in to lay their cards on the table, which might upset the strategy of the government and actually clarify the situation. For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce stepped in to say that those price increases for petroleum products benefit federal and provincial governments but not oil companies. Mr. B. T. Johnson, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Chamber, stated the following:
Unless producing provinces reduce their royalty rates the amount of $1.50 will continue to be taken entirely by the federal and provincial governments till December 31, 1975, and afterwards the government will receive about $1.25 or 83 cents."
Those statements are quite interesting and help in understanding the entire problem. Moreover, Gulf Oil Canada Ltd. President Jerry McAfee has stated that the federal budget does not take into account the real causes of the difficulties now experienced by the oil industry and that the governments will pocket almost all those price increases. Mr. McAfee went on to say and I quote:
Whatever explanation is given by the government, the main thing is that the public must understand that oil companies which need funds for exploration will not have any of those funds collected through the levy of a new excise tax of 10 cents per gallon of gas and the increase of $1.50 per barrel of oil.
They have taken everything! Two thirds of the increase in the price of crude oil will go to the producing provinces and the other third will go to Ottawa; the federal government will of course keep all the revenue from the excise tax, probably to maintain throughout Canada a uniform price for crude petroleum, even in the areas which import oil at the highest cost.
The excise tax may contribute to reduce consumption, but the sad fact is that Canada cannot conserve enough to ensure sufficient supplies for the future. This objective can only be met through an energetic prospection program. It is unfortunate that the government is trying to create the illusion that this budget will promote prospection when, in fact, only about $40 million will go to the industry. At current price

July 23, 1975
Excise Tax Act
levels, this sum is barely sufficient for sinking a well in the Beaufort Sea.
It is also unfortunate that the government is attempting to mislead the public by suggesting that the industry is to blame for these increases, but I do not believe that this will work this time.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these statements are very clear and put the problem in its true context. There is also a very important point that I would like to emphasize in the comment of Mr. McAfee and it concerns our need to establish an energetic prospection program. This goes along with the motion proposed recently in the House by my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). His motion, proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, asked that a complete inventory report of all our resources in this field be given to the House so that we may truly know what are our supplies, our potential and our capacities for producing oil.
In passing, I congratulate my colleague for his motion as it contains a truly serious element to solve our present and future problems as concerns oil. This was a very appropriate and positive proposal, but the government preferred to ignore it and to put forward measures which, instead, are going to boost inflation. That increase in gas price will immediately result in a 2 per cent rise in the cost of living. That is an economic blunder. Further, the Shah of Iran, in a press conference in Mexico recently, indicated that the oil producing nations were firmly decided to hike their prices by 35 per cent, which will play a decisive role against consumers and will result in yet another increase in the cost of living index.
The least we can say in view of such a situation and given the blunders of the government is that the many people who are expressing concern are not altogether wrong. The government's administration go^s against common sense. On the one hand, they have no qualms about considerably reducing the margin of movement of business, on the other hand, they attack the worker by limiting his purchasing power seriously.
Just as we have unleaded gas, so have we unleaded officials and governments. If private enterprises acted the way the government is now doing, it would not take long for them to go bankrupt. If the Liberal party does not change its attitude, it will soon lead the country to state socialism, for the worker will get tired of working for nothing because the cost he will have to pay to go to work will be higher than what he will bring back home to feed his children. It is obvious that I cannot support Bill C-66 and that I must vote against this increase in gas prices, because that measure is simply unacceptable and will have no other effect than to fuel inflation and affect the Canadian worker.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, of all the bills presented to parliament by any government for many years, this bill, Bill C-66 to amend the Excise Tax Act, as reprinted, has generated more heat, caused the loss of more energy, and more hate and distrust of government, than any other bill ever presented. The people of this nation are mad, their mood ugly. They are bitter.


Mr. Bechard:: I did not receive one letter or beef.


Leonard C. Jones: Then you should use the Canada post. If one studies the bill and thinks about the alleged reasons or excuses for it, one will readily find that the bill is inconsistent per se. It is plain ridiculous and senseless. It is the type of legislation, however, that one could expect from a government which has full, arbitrary control, a so-called majority government, but a regime that is lacking in foresight and leadership and the common sense to take steps now which would alleviate the problems and issues which it has permitted to multiply, such as unemployment, inflation, housing, and all the other crises in our nation.
Some hon. members who have spoken on this bill have implied that this may be the last budget of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I could not care less about the future political career of the Minister of Finance, but I do care about the future of this nation and our citizens. I could not care less whether we call this bill the "Turner Cop-out", the "Turner Turn-out", or the "Turner Turnover". To me it is like a plain tart without any filling. It is dry, tasteless, hard to swallow, too flaky, and it is sickening and stifling.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Leonard C. Jones: The hon. member can ask a question at the end of my remarks; in the meantime I would ask him to keep quiet since under the rules I have the floor.
This bill purports to do four things. First, it purports to remove the excise tax on certain items, such as insulation materials, which should have been done years ago. Second, it increases the air transportation tax. There is no indication as to how this money will be spent. Will it be used to benefit the users of airport facilities across the country, or only the major facilities? Third, it purports to reduce the excise tax on certain wines, and fourth, it imposes an excise tax of ten cents per gallon on gasoline.
The Minister of Finance says that the purposes of this excessive and exorbitant inflationary gasoline tax are to conserve gasoline, to provide added revenue, and there is some indication that it is to enable the country to stay on a one price system. All these alleged excuses or reasons for the introduction of this ten cents excise tax are invalid and inconsistent. If it were a conservation method, it would not have that much effect. The large users are the commercial users, and they will receive a rebate.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) yesterday went on and on with a long list of persons and corporations which would be exempt. He told us it is estimated that the annual take on this tax by the government-and I presume that is the estimated gross take-is to be about $350 million in 1975 and half a billion dollars in 1976, but neither the Minister of National Revenue nor the Minister of Finance, nor anyone else, told us just how much will be refunded. We are entitled to know just how much is the net tax to be collected after the administration and collection costs, and after the refunds. It occurred to me, as I listened to the debate and heard some of the ministers, that with typical government and bureaucratic red tape and bungling, and continual empire building, the
July 23, 1975

final result might be that more money will be refunded than collected. Yes, it could happen very well with our present government and its administration.
The alleged reasons or excuses for this bill do not add up. They are inconsistent and illogical. This has been said several times before, and it is true. The fact that the bill was imperfect and had to be reprinted at the beginning should have been a warning and an omen to the Minister of Finance that this "10 center" on gasoline was wrong and imperfect ab initio. It was imperfect from the beginning, and it is still imperfect. It just will not work. It will be a hard and unethical method by which to collect taxes.
Who in reality will pay the tax, and who in reality will get the refund? For the most part the taxpayer will be the ordinary Canadian, the fellow who just cannot afford it, the ordinary worker, the pensioner, the agent, the senior citizen, and all those who do not have the money and who do not put a great number of miles on their cars but who, for one reason or another, absolutely require a motor vehicle for various purposes, such as to go to their place of work, to go to the doctor, to go to the hospital, to pick up groceries, and so on.
I suggest that if the government were in need of $350 million added revenue it should have directed its attention to saving money directly and forthwith, as I suggested a few weeks ago and as reported in Hansard. I will repeat what I said then:
One, eliminate the existing system and policy of implementing bilingualism in the public service, halt language training, close down the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and cut down all allied programs and projects-
Two, eliminate Information Canada. Three, eliminate CIDA management, some of its programs and globe-trotting. Four, reduce payments to the CBC, the National Film Board and other such groups. Five, reduce the Prime Minister's staff and expenses by at least 60 per cent. Six, reduce and/or cut out duplication, waste, overspending and inefficiencies in departments and agencies of the federal government in Ottawa which hold up capital projects across the nation. The empire building in Ottawa begins in the Prime Minister's own bureaucracy and goes right through the entire bureaucratic system.
Seven, reduce expensive and costly studies, studies of studies, consultants' fees and the substantial number of professionals and economists in various government departments. Eight, halt conversion to the metric system. Nine, eliminate the costly, expensive and luxurious lounge for MPs and senators in Ottawa and make more productive use of this space. Ten, repeal legislation requiring bilingual labelling, particularly for imports and exports . . . Eleven, eliminate federal sales tax on Canadian goods, which causes our goods to be non-competitive nationally and internationally. Twelve, reduce the tentacles of that octopus, government bureaucracy and red tape, occupying so much office space. It is disturbing to see how much money is spent on this in the Ottawa area. I just hate to see Ottawa going to Hull.
I regret that move very much.
The minister and his colleagues have heard all the speeches and arguments against this excise tax, this "10 center". Surely the minister must now realize that the members of the opposition cannot in all good conscience afford a measure of this kind. Surely the minister must realize that even members on his own side in all good conscience cannot go back to their constituencies and say to their constituents that they supported this bill conscientiously. This "10 center" is unfair, unreasonable, and iniquitous. It will create untold hardships for all Canadians.
Excise Tax Act
I would have thought that the Minister of Finance would have made some reference to assistance for mass transit. Of course that was another Liberal gimmick and window dressing during the 1974 election campaign. In all honesty and sincerity I would like to appeal to the Prime Minister's sense of fair play and to the sense of fair play of the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, that having heard the pros and cons of the bill they take action immediately to withdraw the ten cents provision from this bill, or at least to support the amendment, and in the intervening six months give further consideration and review to the entire financial picture.
I want to be fair to the minister but I must say that if this piece of legislation is enacted it will go down in history as a terrible blot on the image of this parliament.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the hon. member a question?


Leonard C. Jones: You may ask a question but you might not get an answer.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I agree that I might not get an answer; however, the hon. member did say during his speech that he would allow a question. Does the hon. member not realize that the ten cents excise tax is to subsidize the gas consumed by constituents and consumers east of the Ottawa Valley? I approve of the Turner budget-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hugh Alan Anderson: -because he did make Canada into one nation in dealing with the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Alexander:: What kind of nonsense is this?


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question. The allegation of the questioner was just an argument for the presentation of the "10 center". It was not really a proof. The government is taking too much from the taxpayers now. That is what I alleged in my talk today. There are other ways in which the government could have saved money, but it is too bullheaded to do it.


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be recognized and to participate in this debate today. For the past year I have been very proud to be a member of the House, and I am happy to say that I am a firm supporter of the government as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Carl Young: Perhaps some of the yahoos could give a few minutes to someone speaking from this side.
May I diverge for a brief second, Mr. Speaker, to say that one of the things that makes me very proud of this institution and of the fact that I am a small part of it is the ceremony which takes place on the front lawns of parliament and the streets of Ottawa leading up to Parliament Hill every morning. I am referring to the changing of the guard. As I happened to be coming here a little later than usual this morning, I watched some of the ceremony and I

July 23, 1975
Excise Tax Act
felt justly proud of this place, of this institution, and of the fine work that is done by the young men who participate.


Gerald William Baldwin: You should have stayed there and not gone to caucus.


Roger Carl Young: I am happy to speak in support of Bill C-66. I have not spoken many times this year, perhaps four or five times only, and the record will show that I have participated much more in the work of committees than in the work of the House.
There are those who work to seek headlines, and those who work to get a job done. There are some members opposite who often speak in public. If one looks rather closely at what they have to say I think one would find that in all the huffing and puffing that comes out there is more puff than huff. In the past three weeks there has been much blowing of hot gaseous vapours but not a great deal of substance.
Members opposite have been quite fond of pointing to the lack of speakers from the government side. They are fond of making extravagant claims concerning the changes they have forced the government to make. They are fond of criticizing, but are not very able when it comes to suggesting what they would do. Their criticisms have been mostly destructive and far from constructive. They have suggested that spending should be cut but they have been unable to suggest where, how, and in what programs. They have been critical of the excise tax on gasoline, but they have been unwilling to admit that their measures would force the equivalent revenue to be raised through general taxation.
Under the system we have proposed the user would pay, while under general taxation the non-user would also pay. Why should we penalize the Canadian who does not own a car? Why should we penalize the senior citizen who does not use a car to get around, and whose budget already is too tight?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Tell that to the Minister of Finance.


Roger Carl Young: There are those who talk a pretty good game from the opposition benches but whose action is different. We have heard a lot of hollow and empty rhetoric from members opposite. Their rhetoric has been hollow and shallow even to the point of braggadocio. We have heard pretty extravagant claims from members opposite. We have heard Tory members claim that they put forward a united stand in opposition to the budget bills, filibustering and dragging things out day after day. What they are trying to do is nothing more than establish an election issue for Bill Davis on which to go to the people of this province this fall. They will not succeed because the people of Ontario will not be fooled when they realize who is to blame when they cannot get their rebate cheques.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who put on the tax in the first place?


Roger Carl Young: It is hurting, is it, fellows?


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


Roger Carl Young: The budget bills will be passed and the people of this province will know just who caused them to wait, however long it is. There will be many farmers, fishermen, and commercial people who will not look too favourably on the big blue Davis machine when they find out that the cohorts of the premier in Ottawa caused the delay in respect of the rebate cheques. There will be many people in eastern Ontario who will be pretty upset at Mr. Davis when they find just how his bally-hoo and phoofe-raw about a freeze means that there may be no gas at the pumps in this area of the country come another month or so.
Many auto workers will not be too happy when they find that the dropping of the sales tax on domestic cars really only results in the export of work to the United States. They will remember. There will be many others who will see through the rhetoric and the bombast, because when the inanities and platitudes have faded away they will find that, behind those clouds of hot gases we have suffered through for the past few weeks, there is no substance.
There have been great claims in respect of unification of the opposition in its stand on these budget bills. I suggest there is no unity and that there is not much of a stand. We had an example last Thursday when the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) commended the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for removing the excise tax on wines which had been imposed last November. Those of us here who come from the Niagara Peninsula and who have a fairly intimate knowledge of the domestic grape and wine industry, support the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary in his commendation of the minister. However, yesterday we heard the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) take issue with and castigate the minister for this.
Yesterday we also heard the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) ridicule this change in respect of assistance to the grape and wine industry. We witnessed the same division of opinion in respect of other members of the opposition party. Some members commended the minister and others criticized him.
Last Thursday the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary, in commending the minister, made the rather exaggerated claim that he almost single-handedly brought about the change in the excise tax provisions in respect of the wine industry. He suggested that at the very least it was as a result of the work done by his party. I should like to quote the hon. member as recorded at page 7670 of Hansard for July 17:
I would first like to commend the minister for taking the excise tax off wine which he put on just a few months earlier in his previous budget. At that time we in the opposition pleaded with him and tried to obtain help from the government side of the House, but none was forthcoming.
It would seem to me that the hon. member does not have too much support from within his party-if one looks at the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw or the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton. It seems to me that, for all that pleading which his party is supposed to have done, there are quite a few yahoos surrounding him who would rather not have that change. One wonders for
July 23, 1975

what purpose an hon. member would make such a speech. Perhaps he would do so to create his own limelight so that he might step forward and take a bow. One who has to heap the kudos upon his own shoulders becomes suspect. One begins to suspect all that has been claimed might not in fact have been done.
While such grand eloquence and posturing might look good in the eyes of one's constituents back home, and while such statements might find some use in outlining the heroic gesture in the gallant struggle on behalf of one's constituents, I think a reasonable man would be put on guard that it might be worthwhile to check the facts. If the hon. member is thinking of sending word of his actions back home, I wonder if he will also have the courage to forward a few copies of the remarks of his colleagues, the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, who in their remarks have castigated the changes he says he fought so hard to obtain.
I am sure the grape growers and winemakers of his region will be pleased to learn of the non-support of their cause as demonstrated by other members of his party. I might just remind all hon. members who would make light of these changes of the far-reaching effects they have for the grape and wine industry. The grape and wine industry in Canada represents a capital investment of roughly $130 million in our economy. In the producing part of the season employment amounts to 4,000 jobs across the country. Grape crops amount to a cash flow of some $15 million into the incomes of some 1,200 growers. Additionally the wineries spend some $36 million on grapes, glass, hardware, paper, sugar, and other commodities which are used in the making of wines.
Hon. members opposite who are so glib about criticizing and ridiculing the efforts of the domestic grape and wine industry, and knocking the measures granted by the Minister of Finance in support of them, might do well to look around at the economies of their own ridings.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: What did he do in
November?


Roger Carl Young: I will get to that. Those hon. members might just take a look and see whether they have some of these supportive industries in their own ridings, because it might make a big difference to some of their comments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Did you ever ask Air Canada to sell Canadian wines?


Roger Carl Young: I can assure hon. members opposite that the 1,200 grape growers in Ontario will not be too happy when they hear of the comments of hon. members opposite in relation to the reduction of the tax.
Likewise I can assure hon. members in the NDP that while it is rather strange that many of them can profess so much support for Caesar Chavez and the grapegrowers of California, they have trouble supporting the members of the industry back home, 4,000 employees in the domestic wine industry. They cannot find too many votes in Canada to count on, but they can have every one they can get from the San Fernando Valley.
Excise Tax Act
I said that I was astounded, and hon. members opposite asked "what about last November?" I said I was astounded at the rather extravagant claims of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I will not quote him completely, but he said that they looked for support from the government side of the House and none was forthcoming. I think the hon. member is a little mistaken. It might be more true if I or one of my colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula made the same comment in reverse. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary spoke a couple of times on the budget and on the excise bills last year. There are two references in Hansard to his speaking on the wine industry. One takes half a page in three pages of other content on firefighting equipment, municipalities, and boats.
I do not knock the comments and contributions of the hon. member. I invite them. I have an interest in doing what I can to help the grape and wine industry too, but when the hon. member starts taking credit for his party and for himself for their singlehanded accomplishment in again having this tax reduced, I think that is going just a bit too far.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You voted for it. We
voted against it.


Roger Carl Young: There is another reference by the hon. member on page 2673 and 2674 of Hansard to an article in the "Ontario Grape Grower," suggesting that hon. members on this side of the House ought to have read it more closely. If the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary had himself read the article more closely he would have seen that it says that the local grape and wine industry went first to the Niagara Peninsula members of parliament to explain their problems. I might suggest to him that if he thinks we should look closely at that, he might look more closely at a followup article in the issue of June/July 1975 of the "Ontario Grape Grower."
In an article on the fourth page entitled "Government Rescinds Excise Tax Increase" the actions taken by the Minister of Finance are discussed. I wish to quote part of that article as follows:
Mr. Turner's change of mind was the second concern toward the Canadian grape and wine industry. Earlier, Consumer Affairs Minister Andre Ouellet announced that his department would not go ahead with proposed labelling legislation which would have adversely affected the industry.
In both cases, the federal decisions followed strong representation by both the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board and by the Canadian Wine Institute. Also lending valuable support to the industry's cause were Niagara Members of Parliament Bill Andres of Lincoln, Roger Young of Niagara Falls, Gilbert Parent of St. Catharines and Dr. Victor Railton of Welland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Carl Young: I will quote from another article in the St. Catharines Standard with regard to the actions of the Niagara members of parliament in support of the Canadian grape and wine industry as follows:
In Ottawa, the side of the wineries has been taken up by Niagara's three rookie MPs, Roger Young of Niagara Falls, Gilbert Parent of St, Catharines and William Andres of Lincoln.
I should read into the record a letter from the secretary manager of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board. This is a letter addressed to my colleague, the hon.
7874

July 23, 1975
Excise Tax Act
member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres). If there is one man in this House who can take credit for having the excise tax provisions changed in favour of the domestic grape and wine industry, it is the hon. member for Lincoln and really no one else, because he is the one who did all the work, and he is far too modest to go out and grab headlines.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Where was he in October?


Roger Carl Young: I think I should just read this for hon. members opposite. It says:
Dear Bill: I have been reading over our April issue of the "Ontario Grape Grower", and I can see that we owe you and our other Niagara Peninsula members of parliament a big apology-not for something we said, but for something we sadly neglected to say.
In a front-page item "Government lifts threat on labelling", we reported on the decision of the Consumer Affairs Minister not to proceed with the proposed appellations of origin regulations. In the article, we quickly pointed out that the Marketing Board opposed the regulations from the beginning, and that support was lent to this stand by the Canadian Wine Institute, several Niagara Regional municipalities, chambers of commerce and other organizations.
What we did not say-and I would like to assure you, Bill, that it was an oversight and not a deliberate omission-was that our local members, yourself included, played a major part in the successful opposition to the regulations by lending your strong support to our cause. I do want you to know that we do appreciate the important work you have done for us in this and other areas of concern.
I would like to express my personal apologies for the fact that we neglected to mention your work in the "Grape Grower" article. We will be carrying a follow-up article in the upcoming issue, giving credit where credit is due.
The letter is signed by Keith Matthie, secretary manager, Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Send him a copy of your speech.


Roger Carl Young: I have on my desk and in my office files which are now about twelve inches thick on the grape and wine industry, with some similar letters in them. I do not intend to read all of them into the record, but I think that for the purposes of putting the record straight some of the comments which were made should be included. I just might mention some of them without trying to be too immodest. I have a letter from Andres Wines Ltd., which has no connection with the hon. member for Lincoln, even though the name is spelled the same. It reads:
We at Andres Wines and the other members of the Canadian grape and wine industry greatly appreciate your continued fine efforts on our behalf. As your constituents in Lincoln, we are especially pleased with the concern and leadership which you have shown in this issue.
There are several letters addressed to myself one from Andres Wines, one from the president of Brights Wines, one from the president of Chateau-Gai, one from the president of the Canadian Wine Institute, and one from the secretary of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board. All of these say the same thing. They all say that they thank us and appreciate the concern and leadership which has been shown by us. They do not just come to myself or to my colleague, the hon. member for Lincoln individually. They come to many hon. members from the Niagara Peninsula and others throughout the caucus on this side of the House who have shown such great support.

The industry is thankful that some of this work is being done on its behalf in this country.


Mr. Symes:: How did you vote in the November budget?


Roger Carl Young: I will make some closing remarks. I hope for the benefit of some of the members that I have put the record straight. There are those who ask what I did in November. I know what I did in November. What did hon. members opposite do? I will tell them what they did not do in October and November.
In October and November when the industry wanted to get in touch with the government, they came here looking for members of parliament to talk to at that time. We were asking for, looking for, and welcoming any help there might have been from the other side of the House, but when the members who were concerned showed up in my office I did not see any of the hon. members opposite. When we went to see the officials of the Department of Finance I did not see any of the hon. members opposite.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Who
did you invite?


Mr. Peters:: Only Liberals.


Roger Carl Young: When we had meetings when we asked for support from over there, and when we asked who in the opposition parties had wineries and graperies in their constituencies and who would be interested in helping us fight the cause, there was nothing forthcoming. We got a little bit of a play and some headline grabbing in the House, but I repeat that there are those who come to do some work and those who come to get headlines.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I might say on behalf of those of us who have attempted to do some work for the grape and wine industry, especially my colleagues in the Niagara Peninsula, that having been here for just one year and accomplishing a couple of things like having the government change its policy, we feel rather proud of what has been done by three rookie members of parliament.


Gerald William Baldwin: All modest.


Roger Carl Young: Perhaps it seems a little bit immodest to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), but when one has the letters that I read into the record it is not necessary to go back and tell one's constituents and members of the industry what has been done. They know, Mr. Speaker. The only reason I read the letters was because the issue was raised in a braggadocio manner with the hon. member on the other side claiming all the credit. I have done no more than set the record straight.
Hon. members from the Niagara region have had some feeling of accomplishment, rather like an artist, a labourer or a writer who having put something together, feels some pride. They want to look at what has been done and perhaps ask themselves if they could have done more or if they have done all they can. It may be that having closed our eyes for a moment we looked up again to find that before the cement has dried, before the paint has set or the ink has dried on the page, a plagiarist had come in and
July 23, 1975

signed his name on the bottom corner. Not only do we feel a little plagiarized collectively, we feel somewhat that we have been burgled.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, for some time I have read a column on wine in the Ottawa Journal, by Dillon O'Leary, so I was interested that in the budget the price of some wines-which had been raised in the November budget-was now reduced. In the budget brought in by Darcy McKeough in the province of Ontario it was indicated that the federal excise tax would be reduced. The increase in November was about 20 cents per bottle and Ontario is going to reduce it by 15 cents, leaving a net profit of five cents. I am surprised that Dillon O'Leary, and now the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and the provincial treasurer find themselves enthralled with the subject of wine. Some members have become interested in it too, from a partisan position.
I would warn the hon. member who resumed his seat not to be too modest the next time he wants some assistance in the Niagara Peninsula. I have made a number of speeches in this House on grapes and cherries and other products grown in his area, when nobody else seemed to be interested. Although we do not grow grape crops in northern Ontario I have two or three vines that I have been nursing for seven or eight years-I think they lose ground every year. Certainly they are not going to be any competition for the Niagara Peninsula for many years to come.
There is a widespread interest in wine throughout the country, and the hon. member might find support if he asks for it. He has the misfortune to belong to a majority party, and even though it hurt his area he had to vote for that increase last year.
Along with a number of other people, including a strong winegrowers' association in Ontario, he has been able to convince the minister that to cut down the consumption does not necessarily mean more revenue by increasing the tax. I am sure if the hon. member seeks support he will get it from people not directly involved in the industry to any large degree-the consumption and/or the production. Through improved methods grapes have been developed that now produce a good type of wine.
As one hon. member suggested, perhaps we should persuade the Canadian airlines to serve Canadian wine. I think they compare favourably with many other table wines of the world.
The fact that some people do not grow grapes cannot be construed as a sign that they are not interested in the industry. Unfortunately the only place in Canada where we can grow grapes successfully is the Niagara Peninsula.
Bill C-66 introduced a ten cents per gallon excise tax on gasoline for the individual automobile user. Your Honour knows as well as I, because we both come from northern Ontario where distances are great, that we have had a great deal of difficulty convincing people that cars are no longer a luxury there, and that even those on welfare should be allowed a few dollars for gasoline because there is absolutely no other means of transport in those vast areas that we represent. Torontonians particularly always seemed to have the idea that people who draw welfare should not spend money on gasoline.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Who said this?
Excise Tax Act


William Arnold Peters: For many years this was an accepted view. Recipients of Ontario welfare had to put the car on jacks, had to remove the licence plates and turn them in as long as they received benefits. As the years went by it was conceded th^t one out of five persons on welfare in a community should have a car so that they could get together to go for groceries. It was a very Torontonian attitude toward the difficulties experienced in other parts of Canada. The automobile is not a luxury in my area.
Most of us drive automobiles which are too large. Twenty years ago engines ranged between 65 and 80 horsepower. I am sure that if you restored a six-cylinder, 65 horsepower Chev, it could take you adequately up any hill in eastern Canada and serve quite well on our modern highways.
The Ontario government has embarked on a course which will bring it into collision with the federal government. Unfortunately this collision course will not help to solve any of the province's problems. Darcy McKeough, tongue in cheek, brought in a mini budget which removed the 5 per cent sales tax on North American cars. I point out there are few small North American cars. Most small cars come from Japan, Italy, France, Sweden, England or Germany. The Mercedes, the large Citroen, and one or two other large cars are exceptions; otherwise, those countries manufacture only small cars. There are few American cars of comparable size.
As the most efficient engines burn 14.7 parts of air to one part of gasoline, it is clear that the large the engine is the more gasoline it will burn. For the next ten years this country will face gasoline shortages. Obviously we should be demanding small automobile engines, not the sort of large engines which come with United States imports. Even the Chevrolet, one of the smaller American cars, comes with an engine of 450 horsepower. The Cadillac's engine develops 450 horsepower or over. If you want to save energy you should encourage the importation of cars with smaller engines. Otherwise the ten cents tax on gasoline is really nothing but a revenue raiser for the federal government. We shall not save oil if we encourage the importation of large cars which burn a great deal of gasoline.
Considering the prospect of future shortages of gasoline, we should adopt measures which will force people to consume less energy. Such policies have been quite successful in other countries. Personally I am offended by what Darcy McKeough did. Clearly, if speed limits were reduced to 55 miles an hour, cars would travel farther on a gallon of gasoline and we should conserve some of our precious gasoline stocks. Instead of encouraging people to buy North American gas burners which do 13 miles to the gallon, we should encourage them to buy European cars, or similar, small cars which travel 35 miles or more to the gallon. If any cars should be subsidized it should be those which consume least gasoline.
As I said, the automobile is not a luxury in northern Ontario, on the prairies, or in other areas lacking adequate public transportation. Perhaps the answer is public transportation. Although I have never studied the Toronto subway system and compared how much it costs to move
29669-15>/2

July 23, 1975
Excise Tax Act
people by subway and by highway, I imagine that the subway moves more people more cheaply than the highway system does.
Some countries, particularly Russia, have never shown interest in developing an automobile industry. They have taken the other route, that of developing public transport. Countries like that move an immense number of people by public transport facilities. Examples which come to mind are Japan, Great Britain, and other countries which use modern rapid transport facilities.
Ottawa is unusual. Except for federal parking facilities, parking space is limited. The public transport system is reasonably good and some interesting but expensive innovations were tried in the suburbs. I suggest that if we are interested in establishing adequate public transport in other centres, federal and provincial cabinets should cooperate in providing subsidies for public transport wherever it is feasible. To some extent such co-operation has taken place in connection with the rapid transit Go trains of the Toronto area. The government implemented a similar policy in the Ottawa area, ass backwards.
Instead of providing STOL service between Ottawa and Montreal, the government could have provided a better service by rail which could have served more people. The STOL service is experimental but uneconomic, as few will use it, compared with the numbers who would have used surface rapid transport facilities. The government has tries various innovations in this city, because it is the largest employer in the area and very generous with tax dollars. Ottawa has not done too badly by its major employer. The government has provided, free, many major roads in the area, particularly the better ones. It has given grants in lieu of taxes, and has helped the city to develop.
What is true of Ottawa is not true of other parts of the country. I imagine that in your community, Madam Speaker, few people have access to subsidized public transportation and must drive their automobile to work. They drive because their car takes them where they want to go when they want to go, whereas public transport does not, and the same is true of 80 per cent or 90 per cent of all our areas.
If a ten cents charge is imposed on gasoline before it reaches the retail level, the price will be increased by more than ten cents. It will go up by 11, 12, or 13 cents, or by whatever mark-up the distributor normally adds to the tax. The mark-up of the distributor and the retailer will be added to the tax. When the motorist gets to the pumps, the tax will no longer be ten cents a gallon. An hon. member opposite represents an area where there is a refinery. I am sure he will agree that gasoline prices differ considerably from one community to another in his area.
North Bay is 100 miles south of New Liskeard, where I live, and Timmins is 135 miles north. The people in both these communities pay a lower price for gasoline than those who live in New Liskeard. In my community gasoline costs over 80 cents a gallon. In some communities it sells for up to 20 cents a gallon less.
If the minister wants to be fair he will use the newly established Petro-Canada to ensure that the price at the pump is fair to everyone. If someone must pay ten cents a

gallon tax and someone further down the line must pay 20 cents, the tax will be unfair. That is what usually happens in those areas where jobs are scarce, the automobile is an absolute necessity, and long distances are travelled either for utility purposes or for transportation to and from a job.
Many people in my area travel 150 miles a day. Many people who work in the city of Toronto have to travel 80 or 90 miles per day because they cannot afford housing in Toronto. I have a son who lives in Alliston and works in Toronto. It is a 50 mile trip one way. Therefore he must travel 100 miles a day to and from his place of employment. How much must now be added to his cost of maintaining a job?
I presume the Minister of Finance will say that the reason he is putting on this tax is not for the money but to assist in conservation and to equalize the price of gasoline across Canada. However, it will not meet that purpose. It will provide money, but not equality. It is a very unfair tax. It causes more disparity and greater inequality.
Most members are very interested in the distribution and conservation of energy. They would be much happier if the recommendations made at the first minister's conference a few months ago were adopted, especially that of the premier of Saskatchewan. He recommended that there be an increase, and that the revenue be earmarked for the development of additional resources and increased productivity in the industry. He recommended that the government participate and ensure that the moneys are so invested.
Yesterday the argument was made that if the reserve dividends, taxable moneys which are held back by the companies for various reasons, were put into development, it would not be necessary to talk about socialism and the need for government to participate. For years this was true. Whenever the companies drilled four or five wells, they had a big producer and made a lot of money. They were able to write off their losses. Business was good. However, there has not been any development of any size in this country for years, with the exception of the tar sands. There has been drilling in the Arctic where there is a lot of gas. However, commercial oil production in the Arctic has been very limited. It certainly does not warrant a refinery in that area in the foreseeable future. It is doubtful whether the quantity of Arctic oil will be sufficient to play much of a role in the next 20 or 30 years.
Every tax that is applied across the board lends itself to abuses. However, when rebates are given to the selfemployed, commercial enterprises, and others who consume gas in a business sense, this creates a very great inequality for those who must use their automobile, not as a luxury but as a necessity.
In many parts of northern Ontario the mines were closed. The people who lived in those communities wanted to stay there. Their families had grown up, community life was highly satisfactory, and the social capital had been paid for long ago. These people were forced to get jobs outside their communities. This involved driving long distances. In fact in Ontario laws were passed to the effect that you could not build around new mining developments, but had to live in existing communities.
July 23, 1975

In the case of the iron mine at Dane, about 20 miles from Kirkland Lake, 70 townships were frozen. No building could take place except in the city of Kirkland Lake. I have no objection to that. However, if a person has to travel 20 miles to work, and that is close, they should be allowed a rebate, not of all their expenses, but on a portion of that gasoline which can be directly attributed to transportation to and from work.
Many people in the tri-town area work in Temagami, a 60-mile trip one way, a 120 miles round trip. This involves a sizeable expenditure for these people. Why shouldn't they be allowed to write it off? If they do not own a car and if they cannot get to their jobs, they are unemployed. There is no public transport. There is no reason why part of their motoring expenses should not be written off in the same way that tax concessions are given to a businessman. These people use their cars exactly as a salesman does, that is, to get to their place of business. Surely we can devise a system whereby they can write off at least some portion of their travel expenses.
Since we have got into the field of subsidies, may I say that the general public across Canada does not realize we are subsidizing Quebec and the maritimes. They are not aware that a line is supposed to exist through the Ottawa Valley. They are not aware of this because it is only recently we have been subsidizing Quebec and the maritimes. Before that it was they who were getting cheap oil products-they were buying oil products offshore cheaper than we could buy them in our western areas. Today the situation is different and gasoline in Quebec and the maritimes has to be subsidized. I can recall, though, when it was cheap-and if it was not cheap then someone was hosing the people of those provinces.
The Golden Eagle Company was one of the first companies to ship in offshore oil and, incidentally, every obstacle was placed in the way of Golden Eagle putting its products on sale across the Ottawa Valley line-the Die-fenbaker line. Now the shoe is on the other foot and it is the people east of the line who have to be subsidized. Sure, we want to provide eastern Canada with some kind of equality, but any method used ought to be fair to all the people. It is they who are making the payments and it seems to me the ten cents which is being charged constitutes, in the main, a retrograde step. It is a retrograde step in all cases except where pleasure is involved. And in a nation which values recreation and leisure as highly as any people in the world, even in those areas where we are using automobiles for pleasure, I believe some equality should exist, and I suggest that this ten cents tax is not fair to all our people and is not being applied equally across the board.
I would strongly recommend to all dealers in gasoline that they put a sign on their gas pumps showing how much the federal tax is, how much the provincial tax is, and how much the actual gasoline costs. I should like to see such a sign placed on the tanks because in many areas the taxes amount to more than the product.
Any government which decides to put on a tax only to get money out of the misery of the people who are totally dependent on this product, a product which in many ways
Excise Tax Act
is a basic necessity, like bread, or milk, or medical attention, must bear the responsibility. It is a tax which is unfairly applied if its only purpose is to bring in money. This holds true at least until the day comes when there is an alternative form of transportation-economic public transportation universally available.
It is strange how many people in Ottawa think that public transportation is available everywhere. I would say that thousands of people have been disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits in my area during the past 15 years because they answered the question which reads "Is transportation available?" in the negative because there was no transportation which would get them to a job and back again.
There is a definite need for conservation, of course. It would have been much better if Ontario, rather than getting into a fight with the Minister of Finance had sat down with the minister and discussed how gasoline supplies might best be conserved. We are not only talking about gasoline. We are talking about heating fuel for the coming winter and for years to come. We are talking about long term agreements with the United States which we shall probably have to honour to our own discomfort.
If the provincial government and the federal government had wished to be fair to the people, conservation would have begun with a subsidy of sizeable magnitude to those automobiles which consume least gasoline, cars that can get 20 or 25 miles to the gallon. Other cars should be subject to a penalty. People who drive cars which are capable of getting reasonable mileage should be given a break, not the North American automobile industry which is dependent upon salesmanship to sell a product which has been detrimental to this nation and to the future of our energy supplies. I was shocked to hear the Ontario government say that for an election period it would reduce the price of those large American cars just for the sake of political advantage.
This place is becoming redundant, Madam Speaker. People are no longer looking to Ottawa or to Toronto or the other provincial capitals for an answer to their problems. I do not think the Minister of Finance really faced the problem he said he was trying to face in relation to gasoline taxes. If he did, he spent no time whatsoever trying to convince people across Canada that equality of price, and equality of access to supply throughout the nation were a valuable contribution to the spirit of confederation itself. His failure to do so is one of the reasons this place is becoming redundant. I can certainly say that the Ontario mini-budget, as a direct reaction to the federal budget, did nothing along those lines either.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I know most hon. members would like the House to adjourn so that all members of the House could take advantage of the few fine summer days left. My remarks will therefore be very brief.
I thought however that it was my duty, considering the number of letters I got from workers who need their cars to go to work in the forest, to ask the government on their behalf to consider alternative sources of revenue to get the funds required for the administration of our country.

July 23, 1975
Excise Tax Act
I know on the one hand that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has a very great responsibility to shoulder, in other words that he has to secure the sums of money which are necessary to allow various departments to operate in a normal way. However, I believe that in 1975, such an intelligent Minister of Finance as we have now should and could find other sources of revenue than the ones provided for in Bill C-66, especially with respect to the 10 cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline, which in my opinion will more directly affect the workers of our nation.
We might find a formula to impose that tax only on pleasure journeys. If people do not want to travel for their own pleasure, they won't, and they will not pay that tax. However, to earn a living, to go to work, people cannot do without their car. And I think individual citizens already pay enough taxes.
In his budget speech of June 23, 1975, the Minister of Finance said: government budget revenues for 1974-75; personal income tax $10,069 million; forecast for 1975-76, $11,145 million, in other words $1,136 million more than for
1974-	75. This is personal income tax. On the other hand, corporate taxes in 1974-75, were $4,258 million and in
1975-	76, $4,035 million, that is $250 million less. What intrigues me, Madam Speaker, is that from year to year, when we look at the statistics, we find that the total personal income declines while that of the big companies increases. I wish that were taken into account when imposing taxes, that there might be better balance and more justice in our society. The same people should not always get the bigger share of the pie. Taxes should be shared more equitably. That is why I would suggest that this bill be amended to do away with this 10 cent tax which will affect above all the working class.
I need not repeat what has been said in the House in this regard. To my mind, the matter has been sufficiently explained and I shall dispense with repeating those arguments. Still, I fear that the individual will have to bear the brunt of that increase, in many cases, because the companies will increase their prices as a result of their having to pay tax on gas. They will feel justified in increasing their prices. Then the individual will pay the tax on the gasoline he uses, before being called upon to pay the tax for the corporations, so that he will end up paying the tax twice. It is the individual who will again be penalized.
At the end of the year, these same corporations will be authorized, under this legislation, to claim a refund for part of the tax they have paid for the gasoline they have had to buy. The larger corporations will again take the advantage over the individual. While individuals will not be authorized to claim any refund, corporations will be allowed to ask for the refund of the tax they will have paid. They receive a double benefit, while individuals receive a double penalty.
If I am against this bill, it is because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) could work with his officials at adjusting the tax base, which would permit individuals to keep a larger share of their incomes to support their families. I know that the government takes very lightly the fact that individuals must pay in advance. The purpose of this tax is therefore to provide more revenues. I am

against that, because surely other means must exist in 1975 to provide the government with the money it needs to administer our country.
Finally, the bill states:
For the purposes of subsection (1), the expression "commercial or business purposes" shall have such meaning as the Governor in Council may determine by regulation.
Expression such as this are difficult to accept. They are too vague. It is the legislator who levies this tax. Bureaucrats will decide who is going to pay it and who will not. I feel we should be a lot more careful when the time comes to adopt legislation of such extensive bearing.
I suggest that once the legislation is passed, it be referred to the committee, sent back here and again referred to the committee so that both legislators and officials will get acquainted with it and agree what are commercial or business purposes. What does that mean? What groups of individuals or undertakings will be considered for commercial or business purposes?
Then afterwards, when our constituents will be asking information, we will not look stupid and be unable to answer. We will be able to provide information. I think that we should follow that procedure for the passage of all legislation.
I remember various conditions which were entirely unacceptable. Madam Speaker, I will be told that Parliament has always operated this way and never failed to govern. Yes, we have always acted this way but many of our laws have been referred to courts and given rise to many differences entailing considerable expenditures precisely because it had not been specified what regulations would be enforced following the passage of such and such a bill.
So I think that in 1975, if we want to do something different, if we want to be a modern, a progressive Parliament, we should proceed in a different manner, more clearly and more precisely. This is what the population expects from the legislators of this Parliament. The Canadian people do not want to be bothered but they want to have measures which are clear and understandable for the average Canadian who must use these laws.
Madam Speaker, I said a few minutes ago that the Minister of Finance can find other financing sources which would enable the government to administer without putting too heavy a load on private people. We can hear comments here and there-you simply have to be among the people to hear and understand their comments.
Yesterday, I listened to a two-hour radio program in which the capitalist system was blamed because there are exaggerations; the system in itself is not bad, but abuse is. If we want to save the capitalist system in which we live, we have to initiate reforms, we must do something and who can do this? Parliament. Parliament has the authority to initiate the necessary reforms and to try and adapt the capitalist system to modern needs. For the capitalist system to survive, it must be amended, otherwise it will perish and everyone will wonder why. Suddenly we shall awaken in a country administered by ideologies that we reject but that we shall have to accept for having lacked vigilance.
July 23, 1975

I feel the time has come for us, if we are urged to act in a correct and different way, to find new solutions. As for us, Madam Speaker, we have often suggested financing formulas that would solve the problem. But the government refuses to try them out, while having a good time preserving outdated solutions and unusable systems. As a result people are slipping further and further into debt and even find that funny. From 1967 to 1974, Canada's debt has increased by $25 billion, and everyone finds that funny. The government takes an ever larger slice, especially in personal income tax, and we think that these people are going to bless us for it. Come on! This is no way to obtain the support of the population to maintain a system that should deserve to be maintained. I sincerely wish to be understood, but provided the system be one that serves the population, not a system to which the population has to be subservient. Therein lies all the difference!
These are the few comments I wished to make in this debate. I restrict myself to such comments, because I should very much like that, according to the wishes of the government, this bill crosses the stages it must cross at the present time, and that the stage I suggested be added. This way the legislation will be as clear as possible and no one will feel he has failed to do his duty. 612


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether you could ask for unanimous consent of the House to allow me to revert to motions for the purpose of moving the motion regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there agreement that we revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the motion I move reads:
That the members to serve on the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services be the following: Messrs. Baker (Gren-ville-Carleton), Baldwin, Comtois, Goodale, Lambert (Edmonton West), Lefebvre, MaeGuigan, Mac-Lean, Matte, Kaplan, Reid and Symes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there agreement to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Excise Tax Act


[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).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise to say again that we in this party are completely opposed to Bill C-66. We believe very strongly that the government should withdraw the bill. If it is not willing to do so, we shall, of course, vote for the six months' hoist proposed in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). If that is defeated, we shall vote against the motion for the second reading of the bill, whenever the vote on that motion might be called.
May I remind hon. members opposite of a point that was made a few days ago by someone on this side of the House to the effect that we who sit on this side represent some 55 per cent of the voters of Canada. I suspect that on this issue the percentage of the people of Canada whom we represent is much higher.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is 56.5 per cent officially now, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My statistical assistant tells me that the exact percentage is 56.5 per cent, that is in terms of the vote on July 8, 1974. I suggest that on this issue today the percentage is a lot higher.
I believe we are all interested-and perhaps some of us have some sympathy for him-in the suit that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is bringing against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for remarks which he claims have damaged his reputation. The minister feels that the damage done to his reputation by certain things said over the CBC should be worth $100,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It so happens that some 18 or 20 years ago I took a publication to court, and although I won the case all I got was $1. So I wish the Minister of Finance well.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It does not say much for your capacity to be damaged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point that the judge made, that it was libel but that I had not been hurt.
I suggest to the Minister of Finance that if he wants to find out whether his reputation has really been damaged he should consider what the people of Canada think about his Bill C-66. If that other damage is worth $100,000 to him, this of course should be worth several million dollars, although I do not know where he could collect it.
I want to say a few words on Bill C-66, but I think that I might be permitted for a couple of minutes to say a word about a fact that disturbs many of us, namely, that we are

July 23, 1975
Excise Tax Act
still here, almost at the end of July, debating this bill, and who knows how much longer we may be here. A serious effort was made in parliament some years ago to structure our work. I think we even coined a word and said we were trying to "calendarize" the session so that we would be out of here in the months of July and August.
When we dealt with this matter in the fall of 1968 we faced the fact that what had spoiled most summers was the problem of getting estimates passed. The fact that there was no time limit on them meant that members of the opposition could keep the government here all summer. We solved that problem, and I think it is fair for me to say that the opposition gave up something in doing it. We agreed to an arrangement under which the main estimates for the year are passed during the fourth week in June, and the purpose of that, among other things, was so that parliament would not drag on into the summer months.
This is the seventh summer since that change in our rules was made. In one of those summers, in 1974, there was an election, so we were not here and we could not be kept here that July. But with respect to the other six summers since we passed that rule, three of them have been messed up, not because the opposition kept the House here on estimates but because the government brought in contentious matters at the last moment.
I submit that when talk occurs-and much of it comes from the government side of the House-about the "silly season" and about the fact that we should not be here, this is what should be studied, namely, the unfairness of the government, after everybody had assumed that we would recess at the end of June, bringing down on June 23 a budget with contentious issues, so that we are left with no option but to stay here and oppose some of these measures.
The other summers that were messed up were spoiled in the same way by the government making a decision late in June concerning matters which it felt we must debate; and debate them we did through July in three summers. I am not counting occasions when we had to come back because of work stoppages. I am talking about the scheduling of government business, and if there is any blame for our being here throughout July, 1975, it rests squarely on the government for having brought in a budget with its contentious measures on June 23.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of these measures of course is Bill C-66 which we are now debating. It does several things, but the main and most offensive feature is the proposal to introduce a ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline at the manufacturers' or importers' level. As has been pointed out, by the time the gasoline gets to the cars of the automobile users, that addition may be not just ten cents but rather 12 cents or 13 cents, and in some cases perhaps more. At the risk of saying what has been said a good many times-there are occasions when a point must be repeated-I want to emphasize how unfair a tax such as this is.
Studies in taxation across the years have established the fact that the best kind of tax is the tax that is applied

according to ability to pay. Therefore the best taxes are personal income tax with high exemption levels, and high percentage rates up into the upper levels, along with corporation taxes. However, when one imposes any kind of a commodity tax this has the effect of putting that tax on people without regard to their ability to pay, their need, or any other individual factors.
Generally speaking citizens do not like to pay taxes. It is par for the course for them to complain. But those same citizens know that civilization must be paid for and that taxes are part of that price. What really bothers people, however, is when one person feels he is having to pay a tax that somebody else does not have to pay. When we have these feelings of discrimination we find we really are in a mess. I suggest, as other speakers have, that that is particularly true of this tax of ten cents per gallon on gasoline. Some doctors will have to pay it and others will not. The exemption is not because one is a doctor. What counts is whether one is a self-employed doctor or a doctor on salary. Some lawyers will have to pay it and some will not, again depending not on the nature of the work and not on the amount of income but on the question of whether the lawyer is self-employed or is on a salary paid to him by someone else.
We might take the farm situation again. Generally farmers will get an exemption, but what about the farm workers? There are a growing number of farm workers in this country today, individuals who live in cities and who have to drive in order to get to their work out on the farms. These are not self-employed persons. They are on wages. They will not qualify for the exemption. So there will be people working side by side on a farm, some of whom will be receiving an exemption and some who will not.
Then there is the whole question of the unfairness to people generally because a law cannot be devised that will take into account what is a necessity and what is a luxury in terms of automobile travel. For the most part workers- and perhaps they are the largest number-who have to use automobiles to get to work will not have any exemption. So, if we look across the board the fact of the matter is that there will be discrimination. There will be Canadians complaining about each other. There will be individuals who say they do not receive the exemption while others do.
Then, as was pointed out with great effect last evening by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), there is the question of the paraplegics and others who have to use their cars. A member to my right also brought up the fact that these people require special licences because of the type of cars they drive. However, their special condition does not entitle them to an exemption. Some of these people who may be selfemployed doctors or self-employed lawyers will be entitled to the exemption but those who are working for wages will not.
So I say that throughout the whole gamut of this arrangement we have unfairness and inequality that will have Canadians complaining about each other by saying that they do not get it while the other fellow does. That is built into this whole system.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) tried to give us an account yesterday of how the refunds would be
July 23, 1975

made. He made much of the fact that the machinery is set up to do it, but he spoke of the refund in terms of ten cents a gallon. There will be complaints because people will have to pay 12 cents of 13 cents extra for gasoline because of the tax but will receive a refund of only ten cents, and that only on the basis of the formula stated in the document they will have to file. So as I say the whole thing is shot through with inequalities and unfairness, and is so far removed from the simple, fair and just arrangement for taxation based upon ability to pay that it seems to me that only someone who wanted to do damage to the Canadian society could have thought of this arrangement.
I urge most strongly that the government withdraw this bill. If it is not prepared to do so before we have the vote on the six months' hoist I hope that in the time we shall have after that it may still be persuaded that we speak not only for the Canadian people in terms of their desires but in terms of their rights in respect of this matter.
I want to say a word about the whole question of rebates and the argument that has gone on between my friend from Peace River and the Minister of National Revenue. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) insists that rebates could be made under an appropriate provision in the Financial Administration Act, and the Minister of National Revenue comes back with a legalistic answer supporting his contention that the rebates could not be paid until this bill is passed. This bill does two things. It provides for the collection of the tax and it provides for rebates. The government says that there cannot be any rebates until the bill is passed, and yet the government is collecting the tax.
When we ask the Minister of National Revenue on what basis the government is collecting the tax the answer is that it is an old tradition. I think this not only makes the law an ass but makes it preposterous. Surely if there is a tradition that the government has the right to collect a tax that has not been passed by parliament, then there can also be a tradition that the government ought to have the right, and the duty to pay back something that it should not have collected in the first place. This is the kind of legalistic argument we have heard, that is, that the government has the right to collect the tax by tradition but does not have the right to make the payment back. I submit that this really is an attempt to kid the troops. I submit that the same kind of ingenuity the government uses to collect this tax, or that it drew on in May, 1974, when it took off a tax and put it back on, could be used to make these rebates now without having to wait until this bill is passed which, who knows, might be down the road a piece yet.
The theory behind the collecting of taxes is of course not only that great word "tradition", but it is also that the government, being in a majority, can count on the fact that sooner or later what it proposes will be passed, retroactive to the date proposed by the government. Why not apply that both ways? If the government can collect the tax-because sooner or later its will will become law- why can the government not pay the refunds, because sooner or later the right to do so will become law? The fact is that the government is just using this in an attempt to
Excise Tax Act
blackmail the opposition in order to let the government have this bill.
I submit that if the government wants a summer recess and that if that view is shared generally, just as on other occasions we have reached agreements and put things over until the session was resumed, that could be done with respect to this bill, and the government could then have the summer weeks, those which are left, to consider this whole matter.
If that cannot be done and if the government cannot see common sense in that respect, then I urge that the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition be supported and that this bill be given a six months' hoist.
In a very brief reference I should like to say a word about something some of my hon. colleagues have discussed, although when they tried to speak at length Your Honour felt they were getting a bit out of order. I will not speak long enough to be out of order, but I do want to underline the fact that this unfair ten cents tax, which has no regard to ability to pay, is part of a total package which is taking this country the wrong way both socially, and in terms of taxation. When I speak of the total package, I think of the government's plans for collecting more money for unemployment insurance by that new threshhold system which will be introduced, and by making workers pay more for unemployment insurance for those who are not working. I am thinking also of the provisions regarding hospitalization and medical care, which the government has in mind.
All of these measures taken together are a departure from the sound principle of taxation according to ability to pay, and when the other measures in the budget which relieve things for corporations and put more burdens on the ordinary people of this country are added to that, I say that my point is well taken that the government is taking the country the wrong way. Therefore, when we oppose Bill C-66, we are opposing it not only on account of its own demerits, but we are opposing it because it is part of a total tax package which really surprises me coming from a government which calls itself Liberal. Of course that "Liberal" has long since been spelled only with a big "L." There is just no little "1" liberalism over on the other side any more.
When hon. members from all parties on this side of the House have opposed this bill there have been some voices from the other side asking us what methods we would use to raise the necessary money to have a one price system regarding petroleum products. We have made it quite clear that we still think the taxation system, namely, income tax according to ability to pay, and corporation taxes and surtaxes in both cases on the upper levels, is the fair way.
During the weeks before the budget was brought in by the Minister of Finance at least two of us put a question to the minister in this area. One was the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard), who sits on the government side, and I was the other one. Our questions might even have been on the same day, but certainly they were very close to each other. We both asked the minister whether in his then forthcoming budget he would consider imposing special taxes on income increases in excess of 12 per cent. That was a figure the minister had been bandying about, and the minister said, both to the hon. member for Lac-
29669	16

July 23, 1975
Excise Tax Act
Saint-Jean and to me, that he would receive this representation, and I certainly had the impression that he might consider it and that he might do something by way of meeting revenue needs by taxation on increases in the higher brackets and on personal incomes and corporation incomes generally. But no, there is none of that in this budget at all. The only income tax change in this budget is the $250 per year increase in the case of very wealthy people, those who have incomes of $26,000, $28,000 or more.
I submit that an area where the minister could have used proper and fair taxation methods was passed over for these unfair methods of higher costs to workers for unemployment insurance, higher costs to the sick and to people who need to go to hospital, and for this tax on gasoline. The whole thing is so grossly unfair in itself and is so contrary to the kind of social progress we have fought for in this country that many of us feel very strongly about this measure, and that is why we have kept this debate going.
If I may say so in just a sentence or two, on the other side of the coin there was nothing in this budget, and there has been nothing in this session, for pensioners or for persons in real need. We hear talk about the guaranteed annual income. We are told that it is coming, but in the meantime people in need, whether they are pensioners or those on low incomes in other age brackets, are being told they have to wait. While they are waiting they will have more to pay and they will suffer a decline in their living standards, because of these unfair taxes brought in by the Minister of Finance, one of which we are dealing with in the bill now before us, Bill C-66. We state again our strong and absolute opposition to this bill. We think it should be withdrawn. Failing that, we shall vote for the amendment to give it a six months' hoist.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment	
defeated.
Amendment (Mr. Stanfield) negatived.
July 23, 1975


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I take great delight in now speaking on the main motion. However, since it is six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I presumed that there was no disposition to debate the main motion further, and I
Excise Tax Act
was about to put the question to see whether or not that was the case. It is understood that the debate will continue on the main motion. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 6.21 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
29669-16>/2

Thursday, July 24, 1975